Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Radioactive Substances

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he now intends to make special regulations to safeguard workers using radioactive substances.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 24th February.

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at this question again? I am sure he appreciates the need for vigilance and the fact that the effects of these substances cannot be detected immediately. Was it not as long ago as 1949 that it was suggested that there might be a case for regulations?

Mr. Watkinson: I said in the previous answer that we were considering whether to make special regulations. That consideration is now well advanced.

Retired Regular Officers

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions he has issued to his Department with regard to forwarding the employment in civil life of retired Regular officers.

Mr. Watkinson: The general effect of the instructions to appointments offices

and local offices is to ensure that they do all they can to help the Regular officer to obtain the type of employment or training best suited to his capabilities and wishes.
The Advisory Council on Relationship between Employment in the Services and Civilian Life, set up in 1950, has given much attention to the resettlement problems of Regular officers. Under its guidance the Ministry has prepared a booklet, which will be issued to Regular officers who are approaching their retirement. I will send my hon. Friend a copy at an early date.

Mr. Eden: While I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask him whether he does not agree with me that a large majority of these officers, who have already spent a great deal of their life in public service, would be particularly suited for employment in Government Departments? Does he not consider that it would be advisable for him not only to circulate his own Department but also to encourage his right hon. Friends to circulate their Departments to find possible vacancies which would be suitable for officers who have retired from the Services, bearing in mind that they have many years of active life ahead and have already been used to serving their country?

Mr. Watkinson: The booklet which I will send to my hon. Friend outlines very clearly what the retired officer, or the officer who knows he is to be retired, should do to get a job in the public service. Vacancies which exist are always known by my appointments offices, one purpose of which is to try to help retired officers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Member aware that the highest ranking officers, such as air marshals and field marshals, have no difficulty whatever in finding appointments, because they immediately become directors of one of the Big Five banks, although they have no banking experience?

Factory Accidents (Female Workers)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has noted the unsatisfactory figures for the number of accidents that occur among women and girls


in factories and establishments supervised by the inspectorate of labour; and what steps are being taken to bring the accident rate among these groups to a lower level.

Mr. Watkinson: The Chief Inspector of Factories again drew attention to the unsatisfactory trend of these accidents in his last Annual Report and urged that industry should devote more thought to means of reducing the number of accidents to female workers. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories pay attention to this problem in their inspections of establishments employing female workers.
The National Joint Advisory Council, which my right hon. and learned Friend consulted recently on the general question of accident prevention in factories, has appointed a sub-committee to make recommendations as to the means by which greater freedom from accidents to workpeople generally may be achieved. This sub-committee is now working.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that this unhappy state of affairs highlights the fact that the inspectorate tends to become grossly weakened year by year in the technical skill of its entrants? I am speaking of technically-trained entrants. Will he not do something about that to make sure that it is not one of the factors in this distressing increase?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. This is a special problem which has been clearly outlined, and we have a very good and expert sub-committee now working on it.

Mr. Lee: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is no substitute for an efficient safety committee inside certain types of factory, where the committee can demonstrate how fatal it is to use files without handles and spanners which are worn out and to do such things as that? Will he try to get employers to give such demonstrations inside the factories rather than put it on the shoulders of the factory inspectorate?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing attention to that point. I think the existence of more safety committees would do a great deal to help.

Factory Inspectorate

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to remedy the admitted deficiency in the factory inspectorate of sufficient technically-trained men and women; and whether he will appoint an independent committee to examine and review the problem and make recommendations.

Mr. Watkinson: Steps have been taken to make these posts more widely known amongst science graduates and the Civil Service Commission has agreed to hold a continuing competition for factory inspectors in place of the biennial competitions it has had hitherto. An intensive study of the wider aspects of the problem is going on within the Department and my right hon. and learned Friend does not propose to appoint an independent committee.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that a committee appointed within the Department means that it will be compelled, quite rightly of course, to see how it could make the best possible use of the material now available to it? Do we not really need a committee which can recommend to the Minister and the House whether some other steps should now be taken, including those I have suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary before, namely a new scale of remuneration?

Mr. Watkinson: Whilst I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member in the factory inspectorate, so far as remuneration is concerned, as probably he knows, negotiations are still going on. On the general issue, I think that when he asks hisnext Question he will see that the position is not so bad.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what is now the authorised complement of the staff of the factory inspectorate; what is the actual number in post; and, of these, what is the number who are in course of training and therefore not fully available for duty.

Mr. Watkinson: The authorised complement, excluding senior and specialist posts, is 309, and the number in post 294. Twelve inspectors are at present taking a course of technological training at the Leicester College of Technology and are not fully available for duty. The general practice as regards newcomers to the inspectorate is to train them on the job.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer—which is more reassuring than I thought it might be? I think on 12th November last he told me that the Royal Commission which was sitting would consider the whole of this matter, but up to date I believe it has not yet given such consideration. Could he tell me what is the position today and, in addition, if any information comes from the Committee studying the matter, can it be put into the Library so that hon. Members may study it?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down; then I may be able to give him a full answer.

Unofficial Strikes

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost through unofficial strikes in 1952, 1953 and 1954.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that the information at my disposal does not distinguish between official and unofficial stoppages.

Mr. Remnant: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the numbers of unofficial strikes in recent months, if not years,

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED WOMEN AND GIRLS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE ASHINGTON AND MORPETH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Date
Ashington Employment Exchange
Morpeth Employment Exchange


Women aged 18 and over
Girls under 18
Total Women and Girls
Women aged 18 and over
Girls under 18
Total Women and Girls


11th February, 1952
…
…
167
111
278
49
23
72


16th February, 1953
…
…
176
68
244
53
20
73


15th February, 1954
…
…
173
35
208
75
7
82


14th February, 1955
…
…
87
31
118
69
7
76

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, are now on the register of unemployed persons in the city of Aberdeen; which trades are involved and how many in each trade; and how these figures compare with the corresponding trades in the comparable periods for each of the last five years.

Mr. Watkinson: I am having the available information extracted and will write to the hon. and learned Member.

show indications of widening in extent as well as numbers? In view of the vital necessity of honouring agreements freely entered into, has he inquired from the unions, whether his Department can be of any assistance to them?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that would be a difficult thing to do. On the general issue, whilst we all defend the right to strike, we certainly deplore the use of the strike where there is some other means of negotiation or settlement available, and my Department is always very ready to help in that way wherever it can.

Ashington and Morpeth

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour how many women were registered as unemployed at the nearest convenient date, at the employment exchanges of Ashington, and Morpeth, Northumberland; and how these figures compare with these for the same period in 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the table:

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the unemployment of skilled workers is a loss, not only to them, but to the nation? What steps is he taking to deal with the unemployment which undoubtedly exists in Aberdeen?

Mr. Watkinson: In total, the unemployment over the dates the hon. and learned Member asked for does not show any substantial change, but I am getting out all the detailed facts. Then, if he cares to put down another Question, he may do so.

Notification of Vacancies Order

Mr. Bishop: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now consider withdrawing the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952.

Mr. Watkinson: This question has recently been reviewed and we have come to the conclusion that, in the present state of labour supply and demand, this Order could not be withdrawn without adverse effects on our export and other important industries.

Mr. Bishop: Does the reply of my hon. Friend mean that this Order may be a permanent part of our employment machinery while full employment continues, as we all hope it will? Is it not in fact a severe restriction on personal liberty and an interference with the private channels of employment? Will he take the matter up?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not for a moment mean that this is a permanent feature of our legislative set-up. What I do mean is, for instance, that it has been very useful recently in steering a number of men into the aircraft industry, where they are badly needed.

British Railways Productivity Council

Mr. L. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made by the British Transport Commission and the railway unions in the setting up of a railway productivity council.

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that the Commission has proposed to the three railway unions and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions that such a body, to be known as the British Railways Productivity Council, should be established and that the unions have agreed in principle. The Commission will hold a meeting with the unions this week at which the functions and procedure of the Council will be discussed.

Mr. Thomas: Would my hon. Friend suggest to the Transport Commission and the railway unions involved in this suggestion that they might bring in members from outside bodies, such as the Federation of British Industries and the National Chamber of Trade and other members of the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Watkinson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I certainly

think, for example, that perhaps the British Productivity Council could help in this task. I am sure the British Transport Commission will seek help where-ever it can get it.

Remploy Factories (Orders)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Labour the value of the orders executed by Remploy Limited during the last financial year for Government Departments; and what percentage this formed of total Remploy Limited output.

Mr. Watkinson: The figure, for the financial year 1953–54, was £1,050,000. This was 45 per cent. of the total sales of Remploy Limited in that year.

Mr. Thomson: Whilst thanking the Minister for that very helpful reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the need to consult his colleagues in the Government with a view to arranging these welcome Government orders on the basis of long-term contracts, thereby increasing the efficiency of Remploy, extending their usefulness, and reducing the subsidy?

Mr. Watkinson: I will consider that, but perhaps there is more scope in local government for increasing contracts than in national Government.

Mr. Lee: Does the Department of the hon. Gentleman have any more success these days with the Home Office in getting this work done by Remploy instead of it going to prisoners in jails?

Mr. Watkinson: We do our best with all Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PRICES (OFFICIAL INDICES)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour why it is necessary to have two official indices for measuring changes in retail prices.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th December, 1954, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell).

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these indices are contradictory, misleading and out-of-date


and that the Government choose the more favourable one to calculate the falling value of the £? In those circumstances, should we not scrap both of them as quickly as possible and produce an index in which ordinary folk may have real confidence?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has had in mind the fact that the T.U.C. in its last Report said that the Interim Index of Retail Prices is a very accurate measure of the cost of living.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (IMMIGRANTS)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that no British subject who has immigrated here and, after two years' residence, is liable to National Service escapes the liability; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: Naturally I cannot guarantee that no immigrant ever succeeds in escaping his liability for National Service, but I am satisfied that an immigrant is no more likely to succeed in doing so than other men.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Spastics

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many spastic people there are now in Scotland, where they are situate and how these figures compare with those for each of the previous five years.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): As this condition is not notifiable, I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Hughes: Is no register kept of these unfortunate people? Can the Secretary of State not say whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: There is no record but, according to such information as we possess, we think the numbers are in the neighbourhood of 2,000 children and 5,000 adults. A survey has been started in Dundee from which we shall obtain more information.

Tuberculosis (Vaccines)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now reached any conclusions as to the effectiveness of vole vaccine in the treatment of tuberculosis as the result of the inoculations given to the children at Bridge of Weir Home.

Mr. J. Stuart: Vole vaccine, like B.C.G. vaccine, is a protection against tuberculosis, not a form of treatment. So far as can be established by testing all those who were vaccinated, the effectiveness of the two vaccines is closely comparable. There have been no cases of tuberculosis in the homes since vaccination began in 1951.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State remember that these experiments have provoked a great deal of disturbance in the publicmind in Scotland, particularly in view of the fact that they were carried out on children who could be described as deprived children? Will the right hon. Gentleman in future watch this sort of experiment very carefully indeed?

Mr. Stuart: It will certainly be watched, but I hesitate to suggest that my personal observation would aid very much.

Civil Defence (Mass Evacuation)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study his Civil Defence advisers have made of the mass evacuation plans of United States cities with a view to taking similar precautions in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 3rd March.

Mr. Hughes: Surely the Home Secretary has not the problems of Scotland to administer? Surely that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent in Glasgow about the lack of Civil Defence preparation? Is he aware that in America they are spending 3,000 million dollars on these preparations and that it would be far safer for American personnel in Scotland to be sent back to America?

Mr. Stuart: I think the hon. Member may be assured that there is anxiety not


only in Glasgow but in many other parts of the country. The Home Secretary and I have joint consultations on this subject, as do our Departments and the experts. The statement my right hon. and gallant Friend made covered both countries.

U.S.A.F. Personnel, Ayrshire (Prosecutions)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many United States Air Force personnel have been prosecuted in Ayrshire during the last two years; and what were the offences and the penalties.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. Before this Question is answered, would you, Mr. Speaker, say whether it is in order, seeing that it is obviously designed and intended to throw some reflection on our allies—[Hon. Members: "No."]—and welcome guests?

Mr. Speaker: It is a purely statistical Question.

Mr. J. Stuart: The answer to the Question is: Twelve members of the United States Air Force were prosecuted in the Ayrshire courts during the period referred to. Of 10 charged with road traffic offences, one was found not guilty and the others were fined amounts varying from 10s. to £10. One man charged with theft was discharged absolutely, and one man was convicted of an offence under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1885, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that my sole purpose in asking this Question is to protect my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in Ayr and neighbourhood about the large number of road accidents caused by the queer ideas the Americans have of the speed limit? Does he not think something should be done to bring to the attention of the American authorities the need for protecting the civil population of Ayr?

Mr. Stuart: I think the fact that nine of them were fined shows that something is being done.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the best thing would be to compare these figures. with similar British figures so that we

could then have some idea of the proportion, instead of singling out these figures?

Hydrogen Bomb

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates would be the area of destruction caused by a hydrogen bomb exploded over Prestwick Airport.

Mr. J. Stuart: The destructive effects of hydrogen bombs vary according to their power and the height at which they are exploded. As the Home Secretary indicated on 5th July last, a bomb 1,000 times as powerful as those dropped on Japan might, if exploded in the air, cause total destruction within a radius of five miles.

Mr. Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Glasgow and the whole of the industrial belt in the west of Scotland would be affected in the event of an H-bomb dropping over the American base at Prestwick? Is he aware that the "Glasgow Herald" has recently pointed out that Aberdeen might be affected by its fall?

Mr. Ross: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is to drop this bomb?

Mr. Stuart: I am sure all hon. Members will support the Government in trying to stop these ghastly events from occurring. I would point out to the hon. Member, who asked about Prestwick, that Glasgow is without the radius of lighter damage if a bomb should be dropped over Prestwick. I can only suggest to him that if he has foreknowledge or second sight he should take the precaution of evacuating himself.

Tweed Salmon Fisheries (Seals)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the official report from the River Tweed Commissioners that the large number of seals off the coast constitutes a menace to the Tweed salmon industry; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have seen references in the Press to this Report. The protection of salmon fisheries in the Tweed is, in the first instance, a matter for the River Tweed Commissioners, from whom I have received no representations on the subject.

Coal Industry, East Fife (Manpower)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement concerning his talks with the National Coal Board about manpower requirements in East Fife, and especially in the area of Glenrothes.

Mr. J. Stuart: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State had further discussions with the National Coal Board last week and will shortly be meeting the Glenrothes Development Corporation and the County Council to discuss future developments in the new townin the light of the information he has obtained from the Board.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Secretary of State not agree that the sooner uncertainty in this matter is removed the better it will be? There is a great deal of disquiet in East Fife, particularly in the Glenrothes area, about the question of the manpower likely to be needed in the Rothes colliery.

Mr. Stuart: I am aware that there have been changes and that the date of commencement of production is being delayed by four years. That is the trouble, that the best laid plans do not always work out.

Local Government Loans (Interest Charges)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated increase, on an annual basis, of the cost to the Exchequer, local authorities and other public bodies which arises from the latest increase in the Bank Rate and from the previous increase.

Mr. J. Stuart: During the last three years Scottish local authorities borrowed on average about £60 million a year, about half of it from the Public Works Loan Board and the balance from various sources. The increase of ¼ per cent. in Public Works Loan Board rates would on this basis involve an additional annual charge of about £60,000. The increased charge in respect of other borrowing would depend on the source from which it is effected. Rather more than half of the increase would fall on the Exchequer.
As regards public bodies, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have

informed me that they are not likely to require to borrow in the immediate future.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any intelligible explanation as to why it is necessary so to complicate the finances of local authorities merely to stop hire purchase and other things which have nothing to do with public borrowing? Why is it necessary to interfere with public borrowing merely because the Chancellor wants to take steps to deal with financial transactions elsewhere?

Mr. Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman raises questions of high financial policy which I hesitate to embark upon at Question time, but the rates of interest of the Public Works Loan Board, of course, move—

Mr. Manuel: Move up.

Mr. Stuart: —move in step with the Bank Rate.

Hydrogen Bomb

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate has been made of the number of casualties that would ensue if a hydrogen bomb equivalent to a charge of 20 million tons of trinitrotoluene were dropped on the centre of Glasgow; and what measure of protection is afforded to the citizens against its effects in the first, second, or third phases of destruction.

Mr. J. Stuart: The number of casualties would depend on many factors, including the height at which the bomb was exploded and those precautionary measures relating to evacuation and shelter which, as stated in paragraphs 114 to 116 of the White Paper on Defence, are at present being re-examined.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a very sketchy and unsatisfactory answer to this very serious problem? Could he give us a little further information? Under what conditions in the event of such a bomb falling in Glasgow would obliteration be inevitable, and under what conditions would survival be possible? Apart from proposals in the White Paper, which are non-existent, what protection is now afforded to the people of Glasgow against such a contingency?

Mr. Stuart: I try to keep an eye on the clock when I deal with answers to Questions.

Mr. Rankin: Never mind the clock.

Mr. Stuart: I have to do that because other hon. Members have Questions to ask. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement by the Prime Minister in the House on 1st March.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the right hon. Gentleman not have a rather constructive approach to this matter and realise that, instead of preparing for doom, it may be advisable to try to distribute some of the industries and populations in Glasgow and the big cities among less densely populated parts of the country?

Mr. Stuart: This is a most difficult problem. I hate to think of preparing for doom, and I trust the Opposition to support the Government in efforts to avoid it.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer by the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Dundee Development Plan

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the statutory development plan for the city of Dundee.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed that Dundee Corporation hope to be able to submit their development plan by the end of this year.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind, when he meets Dundee Corporation towards the end of this month on the subject of the Tay Road Bridge, that it is quite impossible for the Corporation to fulfil its statutory planning duties unless it receives a firm undertaking from the Government that the bridge is on their list of commitments?

Mr. Stuart: One bridge leads to another.

Dedication Schemes (Forest Estates)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private owners of forests entered into dedication schemes in 1954.

Mr. J. Stuart: Sixty-one new estates were dedicated in Scotland during the forest year ended 30th September, 1954.

Mr. Hannan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a great decrease compared with the number in 1953? What steps is he taking to use his compulsory powers in these matters?

Mr. Stuart: I personally am averse to taking compulsory powers. The Forestry Commission is doing its best. There has not been a great difference in acreage compared with two years ago. Sixty-one estates account for 54,393 acres and we have 64 further estates in process of dedication.

Forestry

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage of land acquired and the acreage planted by the Forestry Commission in the year 1954.

Mr. J. Stuart: During the forest year ended 30th September, 1954, the area acquired in Scotland was 85,715 acres of which 39,010 acres are classified as plant-able; the area planted in that year by the Forestry Commission was 34,344 acres.

Helicopters (Medical Emergencies)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for a helicopter to be available in cases of emergency for serious medical cases in the Highlands, especially in islands on which the present air ambulance cannot land.

Mr. J. Stuart: While I am advised that there are risks in using single-engined helicopters on over-water crossings, I am considering with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty the extent to which use can be made of naval helicopters in extreme medical emergencies.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer will bring considerable satisfaction and hope to the North, and may we hope that suitable arrangements will be made for using helicopters in these cases?

Mr. Stuart: I shall certainly do my best.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be more appropriate to use the Prestwick Pioneer, which is equally suitable for this purpose and at a fifth of the cost?

Mr. Stuart: I have no desire to ignore the Prestwick Pioneer, but I think it is rather early to assess its value.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Repairs and Rents Act

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the operation of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, has effected improvement in the condition of controlled dwellinghouses.

Mr. J. Stuart: Any comprehensive statement about the operation of the Act must await information which will not become available till the autumn. I hope, however, to be able to give interim figures about certain aspects shortly.

Mr. Hughes: Does not public experience so far show that this Act is a complete failure and has not realised any of the promises that were made by the Government when the Bill was going through the House?

Mr. Stuart: I hope that is not the case. The Government did their best to tackle a very serious problem, but the Act has been in operation only since 30th August and I think we are entitled to a little more time.

Cumbernauld

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further statement he is now prepared to make on the development of a new town at Cumbernauld as a result of his recent meeting with the representatives of Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of his negotiations with Glasgow Corporation on 4th March with regard to the proposed new town at Cumbernauld.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am not in a position to make a statement until I receive the corporation's views on the suggestions which I put to it at my recent meeting and which I have since confirmed in correspondence.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that, so far as the overall deficit is concerned, his proposals are not very clear? Is he further aware that the corporation has now come part of the way to meet him in the direction which I suggested in the House on 25th January, and will he assure us that as the corporation has done that he will not now impose upon it the idea of unconditional surrender?

Mr. Stuart: I was grateful to the hon. Member for his Question to me on the previous occasion. It is true that the corporation has come part of the way. As to the handling of the deficit, I suggested that the receiving authority, the corporation and the Exchequer should each handle one-third, but I said, and I have repeated, that I am prepared to listen to alternative proposals.

Mr. McInnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that within a period of less than two years every available building site in Glasgow will have been exhausted? Since the right hon. Gentleman has been handling the question of a new town at Cumbernauld for more than two years, will he stop monkeying about with it and get on with the job?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Member that my desire is to get on with this job, in view of its urgency, to which he has referred and with which I agree.

Mr. Bence: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with Dunbartonshire County Council?

Mr. Stuart: I have not had consultations up to date for the reason that we have not yet reached that stage; but Dunbartonshire County Council was represented at the last meeting and is aware of what is taking place.

Requirements

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many more houses he estimates are needed in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: Half of the 500,000 houses which the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee estimated were required in 1943 have been built, but I have no information on which to base an up-to-date estimate. The areas with continuing housing needs are, of course, well known.

Mr. Manuel: Has the Secretary of State no indication whatever that he can give to the House as to the wastage since 1943? How many years does he think it will take to produce the houses which are now necessary, after the survey to which he has just referred?

Mr. Stuart: It will take time, of course, in the worst areas, but I am glad to say that in some areas the smaller local authorities are completing their post-war housing programmes. What we must still do, of course, is to concentrate on the bad areas.

Subsidies (Interest Charges)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increased rates of interest that will have to be met by Scottish local authorities, he will increase housing subsidies.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that when interest rates on housing loans fell in 1953 and again in 1954 there was no reduction in housing subsidies in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answer will be received with dismay in Scotland? Does he really think it fair that local authorities and municipal tenants should have to pay the cost of the follies of the present Government?

Mr. Stuart: Instead of my answer being received with dismay in Scotland, it ought to be a matter of satisfaction that we did not do the opposite in 1953.

Mr. Strachey: We are in some bewilderment, because in one answer the right hon. Gentleman told us that the interest rates to the local authorities did not vary with the Bank Rate, and now he has told us that they do vary with the Bank Rate. Will he explain?

Mr. Stuart: The answer is perfectly simple. The Bank Rate used to vary constantly, and Public Works Loan Board rates did not always vary with it, but they do bear some relation to it and are now liable to variation.

Building Rate

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there has been an increase in the

percentage of houses built in England and Wales in 1954 as compared with 1953; what the percentage decrease in the number of houses built in Scotland has been for the same period; and what is the reason for the decrease in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: There was an increase of 10·6 per cent. in England and Wales and a decrease of 2·3 per cent. in Scotland. Output in the Scottish industrial areas, where housing needs are greatest, was maintained in 1954. The decrease for the country as a whole arose mainly from the fact that a number of the smaller local authorities, nearing the end of their programmes, have either stopped or are slowing down the rate of building. In Scotland there has been no substantial expansion of private building as in England and Wales.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year 30,000 more houses were completed in England and Wales, whereas there was a decrease in house building in Scotland? Is he aware that in Scotland, which is the worst housed country in Europe, building contractors are today dispensing with their building labour forces? What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to avoid severe unemployment in the building industry in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: As I said in my answer, I admit that there was a decrease, because private building in England has increased by 52 per cent. whereas, to my regret, in Scotland it has increased by only 4·4 per cent. Added to that, 79 authorities in Scotland are drawing to the end of their programmes.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties and the threat of delays in house building in Scotland are greatly increasing in the most heavily built-up areas owing to the lack of sites and that it is by no means right in every case to throw the blame on the Scottish Office? Will he make sure that local authorities do their best to think ahead on this problem and work in co-operation with his Department?

Mr. Stuart: We realise the difficulties and are endeavouring to assist local authorities.

Building Costs (Interest Charges)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the increased cost of the average four-apartment local authority house as a consequence of the increase in interest rate of the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. J. Stuart: The increase will be 4s. 2d. a year on each £100 of the cost of the house over the loan period of 60 years.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a recent committee which he set up drew attention to the fact that the rates in Scotland were already overloaded? Does this new development mean that he will be still further overloading the heavily burdened ratepayers in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: One answer is that if the ratepayer does not carry it the taxpayer will, and I think that both are overloaded.

Certificates of Disrepair, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many certificates of disrepair have been granted in Dundee under the provisions of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act.

Mr. J. Stuart: Of 11 applications for certificates of disrepair received up to the 31st December, 1954, the town council granted eight, refused two, and have still one under consideration.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Secretary of State for that information, will he also expedite the issuing of general information on the working of this Act, both in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland, so that we may know how it is operating and, in particular, how our constituents are being affected by it?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to hide anything and will shortly issue the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Teachers' Salaries and Pensions

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on behalf of Chapter VI Diploma Teachers

in Further Education; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Stuart: It has been claimed that the qualifications of these teachers entitle them to be classified in a higher group than is proposed in the draft of the Teachers' Salaries (Scotland) (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1955. This claim is being discussed with representatives of the National Joint Council today, and my decision will be incorporated in Regulations which I hope to lay before the House before the end of this month.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May I take it from that reply that my right hon. Friend will not dismiss the claim of this section of teachers without due consideration?

Mr. Stuart: Certainly I should not dismiss it, but I should prefer not to comment at this stage.

Mr. Woodburn: May I take it from that that the Secretary of State is not definite about the draft regulations, that they will, if necessary, be amended before they are presented to the House, and that he will consider any representations made to him as to their modification?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, I should certainly take all representations into consideration.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now made a decision concerning the monthly payment of teachers' pensions as a result of the representations made to him by the Educational Institute of Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: Not yet. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 14th December, this matter can be raised in the course of the discussions on teachers' superannuation with the teachers and local authorities which started on 16th February.

Mr. Willis: In view of the very long time that this matter has been under consideration, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time he made a decision? What are the difficulties which prevent him from making a decision?

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member must be aware of some of the difficulties in view of the Bill which was before the House in the previous Session. Other important matters have to be considered


in addition to that which the hon. Member has raised in this Question. I do not think that the particular matter to which his Question refers should be treated in isolation.

University Students (Awards)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on grants to university students; and how these compare with grants to students in England.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, in accordance with which awards to Scottish university students are assessed, are at present under review in the light of such increases as may have taken place in students' expenditure since the Regulations were made. While exact comparison is difficult, awards under the current Regulations are on the whole less in value than the corresponding awards made to English students.

Mr. Manuel: Would the Secretary of State not agree that it is quite unfair that there should be inequality between grants given to students in England and those for Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in the matters which he has just indicated will be coming forward, this inequality will be cleared away and Scottish students will get the same help as their counterparts in England?

Mr. Stuart: The system in Scotland has always been different from that adopted in England, and that is not necessarily always a bad thing. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in the debate on 11th February, referred to this matter in a carefully thought out speech, in the relevant part of which there is nothing with which I disagree. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the increased grants come out of the global sum that is available and that the more that is taken out of the global sum for increased grants the less there is available for general educational services.

Mr. Woodburn: While we have no dispute with the point made in the speech of my hon. Friend, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an anomaly has occurred inasmuch as English students frequently come to Scottish universities and it is a little awkward when they have much more handsome grants than the

Scottish students? When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter, will he bear that anomaly in mind?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider increasing the grant payable to students in the fourth, fifth and sixth years of senior secondary schools.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations under which awards of this nature are made are at present under review.

Mr. Hannan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in the course of this review that it is from the categories which are mentioned in the Question that potential recruits are obtained for the professions, particularly the teaching profession? Will he bear in mind that in many instances it is not so much a case of objection by the children themselves as of the difficulties and anxieties of parents caused by the increased cost of living?

Mr. Stuart: In view of the fact that these regulations are under review, I prefer to say nothing further now but will bear the hon. Member's remarks in mind.

Films

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the use, and aid the production, of educational films to assist teaching in schools.

Mr. J. Stuart: Annual grants are paid to the Scottish Educational Film Association, one of whose chief aims is to encourage the use of these visual aids in the schools, and to the Scottish Central Film Library, who purchase films for hire to education authorities. Grant is also paid to enable the Joint Production Committee of the Scottish Educational Film Association and the Scottish Film Council to produce films and film strips to meet the needs of Scottish schools.

Mr. Manuel: While thanking the Minister for the information contained in that answer, may I ask him to do all in his power to aid the education authorities who are keen on furthering the use of visual aid projects within their own county areas to take what advantage they can of teaching by this method?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir. In so far as we can make these films available, I shall be glad to encourage them.

Borrowings (Interest Charges)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated additional sum required to be paid by local education authorities in the next financial year as a result of increased interest charges consequent on the raising of the Bank Rate from 3½ to 4½ per cent.

Mr. J. Stuart: Though precise figures are not available, it is estimated that the increase of¼ per cent. in the Public Works Loan Board rates will involve an additional annual charge of about £16,000 in respect of borrowing by education authorities from the Board. Education authorities also borrow from various other sources, and no estimate can be given of the increased charge in respect of this.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the additional charges that the local authorities will have to pay in interest will have an adverse effect on the development programmes in education? There is already considerable apprehension among local education authorities about the future prospects in education.

Mr. Stuart: Less than one-half of any increase falls on the rates. We have had alterations in the Bank Rate before now, and they have not always led to increases in the rates of the Public Works Loan Board.

Haldane Public School, Balloch

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why work on the Haldane Public School at Balloch has been stopped.

Mr. J. Stuart: Shortly after the preliminary work of pegging out the site had started I approved a proposal by Dunbartonshire education authority to extend the size of the school, and the work was suspended to enable the necessary alterations to be made to the plans.

Mr. Steele: Is the Secretary of State aware that just four weeks agothe Joint Under-Secretary of State informed me that work had just started on this school? Is it not the case that the local education

committee wanted a larger school and that the plans were held up because the right hon. Gentleman's Department did not agree to a larger school, that the committee finally agreed to the smaller school and that then his Department suggested that a larger school should be built? Could I have some explanation of this avoidable delay?

Mr. Stuart: The delay is due to the fact that it was decided that it was right to increase the size of the school.

New School, Cardross

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is hoped the three-classroom school at Cardross, on which work started in April, 1953, will be completed.

Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that the instalment of this school that is now being built will be completed in June of this year.

Mr. Steele: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a report on a luxury hotel built in Bond Street, with 219 bedrooms each with a bath and shower, and with many luxurious and magnificent public rooms, all built in 21 months? Why is it that under the direction of his Department it has taken more than two years to build a small three-roomed school in the village of Cardross? Is this an indication of what priority means under the Tory Government?

Mr. Stuart: It is proof of the fact that American dollars do not build Scottish schools.

New Schools, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number and the types of new schools started in Ayrshire since January, 1952; and how many of these are in Kilmarnock.

Mr. J. Stuart: Construction has started on one new primary and two new secondary schools, as well as on three major extensions to existing schools. Of these, one new senior secondary school is in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross: Am I not right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman surely must be aware from the needs of Kilmarnock and Ayrshire generally that this is


altogether inadequate and shows the complete folly of the Government in their approach to the question of building? Is he aware that in Kilmarnock, in connection with the great new housing schemes, there is considerable difficulty now leading to much ill-feeling because the authorities have failed to put up the educational establishments which are necessary for the children there?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Member that this is not the end of the story. Approval has been given to four new primary schools, three secondary schools and three major extensions to existing schools in Ayrshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OVERSEAS EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Yates: asked the Prime Minister if the Government have yet considered the second special report of the Select Committee on Estimates in which the Committee is unable to accept either the allegations of inaccuracies or detailed critcisms contained in Command Paper No. 9377; and what action the Government propose to take in this matter.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Command Paper No. 9377 contains the comments of Her Majesty's Government on the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates and announces that certain action has been or will be taken by the Departments concerned. The views expressed in the Second Special Report from the Select Committee on Estimates have been noted, but Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they are of such a nature as to require a further reply.

Mr. Yates: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although I was not a member of the Select Committee that submitted this repudiation of allegations published in the White Paper, I have been able to detect no fewer than 12 inaccurate or unjustifiable statements appearing in it, and, in those circumstances, will any useful purpose be served by the Government declining to allow the House of Commons to debate these important matters?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we have debates in the House of Commons and

the Select Committees appointed by the House of Commons have their duty to make reports, but continued disputations between the Government and Select Committees do not at present form a prominent part of our procedure.

Mr. Yates: asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government propose to take to curb the large expenditure overseas incurred by all Government Departments which now exceeds £200 million.

The Prime Minister: It is the Government's policy to keep Departmental expenditure overseas to the lowest level, consistent with the United Kingdom military and other commitments. Such expenditure is therefore under continuous review and no special measures are contemplated, beyond those which have long been customary and valued under our present system.

Mr. Yates: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in 1945 he sent a minute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which the Treasury appear to have lost, in which he requested that the Treasury should resume effective control before this expenditure had reached the present astronomical figure? Why is he now so ineffective in being able to control this ever-increasing expenditure?

The Prime Minister: We should all like to do so, and a very searching inquiry and examination has been made as a result of the Report of the Committee. No doubt the interest which the hon. Gentleman is taking in the matter will contribute to the zeal with which it is being pursued.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the Prime Minister kindly explain the relationship between the amount of military expenditure and the amount of expenditure on the overseas services? Do they necessarily run side by side?

The Prime Minister: I could not do that on the spur of the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR BOMB TESTS

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minster whether, in view of the increasing danger of genetic effects of increased


radioactivity resulting from the explosion of nuclear weapons, he will propose a general suspension by all nations of further test explosions during the United Nations discussions on disarmament.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to Questions on this subject last Thursday, 10th March, which were very carefully considered.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Prime Minister aware that almost every day authorities and responsible scientists on both sides of the Atlantic are gravely disturbed about the increasing radiation in the atmosphere in the world if these tests continue, and will he not examine the question of proposing the suspension of explosions that cause dangerous radiation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the matter is always in my thoughts and in those of the competent officials who are charged with watching this matter. I think I should make a mistake if I tried to give a resume of the position up to date every day at Question time.

Mr. Strachey: Would the Prime Minister explain the meaning of the very cryptic statement of the Foreign Secretary last night on this subject? Does it mean that even if experiments were stopped stockpiles of this weapon might go on increasing, and, even if that were so, would not the stopping of the experiments be a most valuable first step?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a question which might well be put on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Prime Minister how many atomic explosions have been detected in the world by the scientific instruments at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government, and where, since the explosion of the first atomic bomb.

The Prime Minister: If I were to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's Question I should have to make disclosures which would be of the greatest value to other countries in forming their own opinion of the effectiveness of our intelligence methods. They would see what we had stated and they would know what they had got. I regret therefore that I do not feel able to give him the information for which he asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert committee or take other appropriate steps to consider ways and means of substantially lessening the spate of delegated legislation and thus remove the threat to our parliamentary institution.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government have this matter well in hand, as is shown by the steady decrease in the volume of delegated legislation in recent years. The figures are:

1951
…
2335 Statutory Instruments.


1952
…
2312 Statutory Instruments.


1953
…
1937 Statutory Instruments.


1954
…
1764 Statutory Instruments.

The great growth and complexity of public business makes essential some degree of delegated legislation. The House of Commons has quite enough to do. What we need is more influence, not more work.

Mr. Davies: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his reply will not fool any hon. Member of this House, and is not the House fully aware that, although considerable numbers of controls have been taken off, a plethora of statutory rules, orders and regulations still go on, and will not the right hon. Gentleman do something if only in the interests of our Parliamentary institution?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITABLE AND RELIEF FUNDS

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the number, variety and present purpose of charitable and relief funds which have been raised by public subscription since 1914, to inquire into what steps should be taken to ensure that their remaining moneys are still required for their original purposes, and how far it is necessary or desirable to establish arrangements for periodic review and, if necessary, liquidation.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any special need or general demand for the setting up of such a Royal Commission. I am against Royal Commissions on the whole, at any rate more than the usual proportion. The Committee on the


law and practice relating to Charitable Trusts, under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan, covered trust funds. The Government is still considering its general action on the recommendations of the Committee, having dealt with one point concerning imperfect trust instruments in the Charitable Trusts (Validation) Act, 1954. If the right hon. Gentleman has any specific information on the matter he has raised and conveys it to me, I will be glad to look into it.

Mr. Woodburn: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply and while understanding his point of view about Royal Commissions, is he not aware that there is a little concern about the number of offices scattered all over the place which seem to be dealing with charitable funds which have been gathered for disasters and other matters long since past, and while these people are quite content naturally to remain in office without any fuss which might have the effect of removing them, does it not seem a great waste of manpower and a great multiplication of activity on which there might be some economy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I will see that further examination is made of it by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARIS AGREEMENTS (RATIFICATION)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish in a White Paper the text of his letter of 12th January to the former Prime Minister of France concerning the ratification of the Paris Agreements.

Major Anstruther-Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, had not the hour struck before this Question was asked.

Mr. Speaker: I think it was just striking when I called the hon. Member's Question.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my remarks on this subject in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Warbey: In the meantime, in view of the fact that M. Pinet has already quoted extracts from that letter, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he took the opportunity to threaten that, if France did not quickly ratify the Paris Agreements, her place would be left empty in international conferences?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is a very well-chosen moment to put so crudely a statement the actual facts of which will in due course be communicated to the House.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to obscene publications.
This Motion seeks to introduce a Bill which is, in broad outline, what has sometimes been referred to as the Herbert Bill; in other words, it is the Bill which was drafted by the committee set up under the auspices of the Society of Authors, of which committee Sir Alan Herbert and, later, Sir Gerald Barry, acted as chairman. It was a committee which had a distinguished membership among publishers, authors, critics and other people associated with these matters.
The need for the Bill arose largely out of five cases during 1954, in which publishers of the highest repute in this country were accused of the common law offence of obscene libel. Those five cases had varying results. Two of them resulted in the acquittal of those who were charged, two of them in convictions, and in one the jury twice disagreed. On the third trial the case lapsed because, as is the practice, the Director of Public Prosecutions then offered no evidence.
Out of these five cases there arose concern on at least three grounds. In the first place, it was felt that the law was in an extremely uncertain state, and that it was difficult to reconcile the way in which it was being applied in some cases with the way in which it was being applied in other cases. There was a most marked difference between the summing up in some of these cases and in some of the others.
In the second place, it was felt that on the basis of the law stemming from the famous Hicklin judgment of 1868, an obscurantist and almost ridiculous literary censorship could, in certain circumstances, be imposed.
In the third place, it was felt that a real danger might arise, and I think that this danger would have been a present danger had the fifth and most famous of these cases—the one in which the jury twice disagreed—gone the other way, as it might have gone by the narrowest of margins. There would then have been a very present danger that printers, who are also indicted under the terms of the law, and librarians, might themselves have begun to apply a censor-

ship still more rigid than that which the law could possibly sustain in order to safeguard themselves. This, clearly, would be a dangerous and undesirable state of affairs.
When, as a result of these cases, the law came to be looked at in more detail, it was clear that beyond these three broad facts there were a number of anomalies and difficulties about the present state of the law. First, it was clear that the purpose and intention of the author and the publisher were not relevant matters in deciding what the verdict should be. A particularly ridiculous state of affairs arose in one of these cases in which counsel for the prosecution continually asked, whilst reading out passages of which he complained, what possible purpose could the author have for including this passage or that passage in the novel? And, of course, under the law as it stands the one person who could have answered that, the author, was not able to do so because it was totally irrelevant to the matter which was before the court.
The second difficulty is that no defence was provided for, no defence is permissible, on the grounds of the literary merit, the artistic merit, the scientific merit or any other merit of the publication.
Thirdly, no expert evidence can be called. In one of the cases a number of literary critics of the highest standard, who had reviewed the book in question in journals of repute and had given it prominent reviews, were present in court but were not able to be called to give evidence. One would have thought that in deciding whether a book was published for a pornographic or corrupting purpose it would be relevant that literary critics of the highest understanding had thought it worth while to review the book. But such evidence is totally inadmissible as the law stands.
Fourthly, there is no certainty whether it is isolated passages or the dominant effect of the work in question which has to be judged.
Fifthly, curious though it may seem, there are no maximum penalties laid down for an offence against this section of the law. A penalty without limit except, I suppose for the death penalty, might be given if it were so wished.
These defects in themselves amount to a reason for a reform of this section of


the law, and in my view, and in the view of the committee which drafted this Bill—and, I hope, in the view of the House this afternoon—make it necessary to introduce a clarifying and, if possible, a liberalising Measure to give greater security to works of good intent. That is the purpose of the Bill which was produced and submitted to the Home Secretary before Christmas, and it is the Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce this afternoon.
Its central feature can be summed up in the following brief paragraph from the Explanatory Memorandum:
The question of intention is declared to be relevant, and the court is required to consider among other factors: (a) the dominant effect of the publication, (b) evidence of its corrupting influence if any. (c) literary or other merit of the publication, (d) the type of persons among whom it is likely to circulate.
I know there are certain difficulties about this question of intent. The "Daily Telegraph" this morning had an article which bore upon this. I speak in this matter very much as a layman and not as a lawyer, but I am encouraged to do so in the happy knowledge that the majority of hon. Members are laymen and not lawyers, although I am also glad to have the support of a number of distinguished hon. and learned Members for my Bill.
I know that people are inclined to say that the intent of somebody publishing a pornographic or corrupt publication is never to corrupt anybody but that his intent is to make money; but surely this is a problem which the law has to face in other fields. In the crime of murder the intent in this sense of the person doing the murder is often to obtain a sum of money or some other advantage from the death of a person. None the less, his intention in the legal sense to promote the death of the person has to be shown and is an essential part of the crime.
I think it is important, in this respect, not to confuse the question of motive with the question of intent. I believe that if we act on the basis of intent, as we have done in the Bill, and that if recklessness in the sense of apprehending the evil which might follow, without necessarily desiring it, is also put in as a reason for conviction, we should have a Measure which would be at once liberal and practical. I think we could advance in this way.
I now come to my last main point. It may be asked: does the Bill conflict with

the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, which is now before the House of Commons? I think I ought to say that before this Bill was introduced it was the intention of the committee which drafted the Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce to cover horror comics as well by extending the meaning of "obscene" to cover horror, violence, and so on. We are in no way opposed to dealing by legislative means with the question of horror comics, but we want it to be based on intent and not upon the objective basis which is in the Bill at present. Therefore, there is no necessary conflict there at all.
In the second place, during the Second Reading of the other Bill we were continually told that it was not right to be opposed to that Bill because we wanted another and a different Bill. I would again say today that it is not right to be opposed to this Bill because one is in favour of another and a different and a narrower Bill.
There is a third point here, one which "The Times" Brought out in its leading article this morning. If the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill goes through—I think it is generally accepted, and the Government have indicated that it will go through with some amendments, partly in the direction of what I have said—a very anomalous position will arise. As "The Times" said this morning, there will be:
… a partially reformed law covering one corner of the field of corrupting publications and a miscellany of defective laws covering the rest.
"The Times" went on to urge the Home Secretary and the Government to seize the present opportunity to cover the whole field. I wish the Government would do so. If the Government cannot do it, let us at least introduce this Bill this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. John Foster, Mr. Foot, Mr. Angus Maude, Mrs. Eirene White, Mr. Nigel Nicolson, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, and Mr. Simon.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to obscene publications, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Navy Estimates, 1955–56

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £50,604,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: On this Vote for the pay of the Royal Navy, I hope it will be considered appropriate if we spend a few moments considering two aspects which are of importance, one being the position of the lower deck and the other being the officer structure.
When he introduced the Navy Estimates, the First Lord said that the manning of the lower deck was a grave problem. That is true. There is no doubt that recruitment to the Royal Navy over the last few years has been very disappointing. The number of Regular recruits has declined each year since 1951–52. In 1951–52, there were 11,000 recruits; in 1952–53, 10,000; in 1953–54, 9,000; and, in 1954–55, 8,000.
The fact that Regular recruiting for the Royal Navy has fallen from 11,000 in 1951–52 to 8,000 last year has not been due to a deliberate policy. It has been the result of an inability to recruit the men the Navy wants. It is, therefore, fitting that the Committee should spend some time asking the Civil Lord, who has to carry all the burden of the Board of Admiralty this afternoon because of the accidents and hazards of our life, what the Admiralty intends to do about this apart from having another inquiry.
I said in the debate on the Navy Estimates that we had had a great many inquiries over the last few years. In fairness, one ought to say that the conditions on the lower deck have been improved

considerably over the last two years. In matters of pay, in living conditions—not to such a great extent in the matter of accommodation because of the inherent disadvantage of serving aboard ship—and in length of service abroad there have been a number of improvements. Yet, despite the improvements which have been made, recruiting continues to go down.
The Navy is having to rely more and more upon National Service men. During the coming year it is estimated that about 5,000 National Service men will go into the Navy. They are, of course, very welcome, as I am sure the Civil Lord will agree, for they are very fine men indeed. Those who have seen them during their training know that the Navy has a very good bargain in most of the National Service men that it gets. However, the fact remains that to have a system growing up in the Navy in which about 40 per cent. of its recruits are National Service men doing two years' service is destroying the conception of the long-service Navy which has been part of the whole way of life of the Navy for many years.
Is the Admiralty reconciled to this? Has the Admiralty got to the stage where, in effect, it is saying to the country that because it cannot do anything about it, it will rely for 40 per cent. of its men on National Service men? If that is so, the Navy will be getting into the same difficulties that the Army has found in having such an overload of men to be trained that it cannot get down to doing the real job.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: Is it not a fact that one of the reasons there is a shortage of volunteers in the Navy is that the volunteers, such as there are, prefer to go into the Army?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is trailing his coat, but I should have thought that that was far from the case. I should have thought that the Navy was the most attractive of the three Services, but I do not want to be diverted into an inter-Service war of that description. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member passes that point to the Civil Lord.
That manpower position will affect so many things, not only the nature of the Navy itself, but its reserves. The


R.N.V.R., which has, in the past, provided a very fine nucleus of men, is increasingly becoming a Service that is designed for the post-National Service and pre-National Service man. The number of recruits for the R.N.V.R., recruits who have no National Service obligations, is becoming very small indeed.

Commander J. W. Maitland: None.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member is re-emphasising what I am saying. He is saying that there are no such recruits. That is going a bit far, but, certainly, the number of recruits for the R.N.V.R. is very small. I should like to ask the Civil Lord what he has to say about this position.
Can he tell us something about the R.N.V.R. air squadrons? They form an essential part of our air defence in the Royal Navy. I would sooner hear from him what is the position of the R.N.V.R. squadrons than give circulation to some of the very disquieting stories about the condition of the R.N.V.R. air service that have reached me. I have no means of checking whether they are true and I do not propose to give them wider circulation this afternoon. Will the Civil Lord tell us what is the state of readiness of these squadrons, whether they are up to strength in officers and men—it should be better in officers than in men—and what proposals he has for ensuring that we have R.N.V.R. air squadrons really up to strength? I want him to devote some attention to that point.
On the question of recruitment of men to the Navy, I fear that the attractions of full employment ashore—and this is a platitude—arebound to remove a large number of would-be recruits who were ready to join the Navy before the war when employment was by no means so easily obtainable and I speak from personal experience—

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Vote.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that you have now raised that point, Sir Charles, as we are getting along very well. I will, of course, confine myself to the particular issue. Indeed, you have put me off my stroke to the extent that I cannot say anything more about it. I have put

my case and I hope that the Civil Lord will have the same luck in making his reply.
I will deal next with the officer structure, which concerns the pay and promotion and the careers of these men and which, I should think, would be in order on this Vote. I am very glad indeed to hear the proposal that more officers should be promoted to the branch list. I have always felt that it was a very bad and unfortunate state of affairs that a man could get to the top of the noncommissioned ranks—become a chief petty officer at 32 or 33—and then find that any further avenues of promotion were closed to him. I welcome the new officer structure in as far as it provides for a good non-commissioned officer to go further in his chosen career. I am sure that that is a very good thing.
On the question of the rest of the officer structure, I must say that we should like to hear from the Civil Lord what is proposed. There has been considerable disquiet among those affected. How does the Board of Admiralty propose that the officer list should be divided at commander? Is it to be done by the decision of the Second Sea Lord? Will he review the potentialities of these officers when they become commanders and decide that some should go to shore appointments and some command ships? I understand that that is so.
Will the officers concerned have any right of appeal, or will they just get a chit one morning saying, "This is your future and there is no appeal from the decision of the Second Sea Lord"? What representations can they make? I know that it is not usual for representations of this sort to be made, but, on the other hand, this is a new system and the division of the officer list in this way, which is going to affect the careers of these officers very considerably is something that should be looked at with a sympathetic eye.
I ask the Civil Lord again, will those who are dissatisfied with their position in the list either ashore or at sea—and I expect it will be those who will be told they have to stay ashore who will be dissatisfied—be given permission to retire? Will they be given sympathetic consideration? Oddly enough, most men join the Navy to go to sea and if, when they are 35 or so, they are told that


they stand no chance of going to sea, then in some ways they will have a grievance and we ought to consider how far that grievance can be met.
I fully sympathise with the desire to get in more sea-time. I am sure that it is absolutely right, but we must remember that there will be a number of intensely and bitterly disappointed men if they are told, when comparatively young and mobile and energetic, that they cannot again go to sea. I am sure that the Committee would like to hear from the Civil Lord what the Admiralty proposes to do for them.
I want to ask about the division of the Fleet Air Arm. I understand that some men will go ahead in the Fleet Air Arm and some will transfer to the general list. Will those who are left behind in the Fleet Air Arm be sidetracked, as it were? Is there to be a dead-end in the Fleet Air Arm? If so, that would be very unfortunate. In other words, what is the nature of the division of these officers in the Fleet Air Arm when they reach this point in their careers at which separation takes place?
Are there to be first-class men in the general list who will become flag officers in due course together with many people left in the Fleet Air Arm waiting until they reach the end of their careers? I hope that that is not so. I ask this question in no hostile spirit, but to clear up the position about which a number of people serving in the Navy still have some doubt.
That is all I want to raise at this time. I conclude by saying that the whole strength and foundation of the Navy lies in having happy and contented officers and men serving in it. If we do not have enough men, then there must be something wrong. We do not have enough men at present either serving, or in the reserve list. It will be generally admitted that there has been considerable frustration in officers' ranks which has not been removed by the announcement about the new officer structure, however necessary it may be for the Service as a whole. I hope, therefore, that the Civil Lord will be able to focus our attention on these matters and tell us something further about them.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I join with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in wishing the Financial Secretary a speedy recovery from influenza.
There are one or two points which I wish to make about this Vote. Is it right that the Navy should get £126,000 a year for publicity purposes, compared with £231,000 for the Royal Air Force and £344,000 for the Army? Why should this publicity be run by the Central Office of Information and not directly by their Lordships? I hope that my right hon. Friend will do something to help to increase that amount voted for the Navy.
My next point relates to the post list. It will give more sea-time, and I hope that that will include the visits to resorts, which should help recruiting. It will promote more interest if people can see the ships and the Navy at work.
I think it an excellent thing, as revealed in the branch list, that these men should be promoted. There are such jobs open to them as school liaison. If we are to stimulate recruiting, it is important that we should have the right type of officer lecturing at schools on the work of the Navy, and not someone who has no hope of any further promotion. For this job we need someone who was well decorated in the last war, and able to tell an exciting story, and who can explain the work of the Navy in peace-time as well as in war-time.
Officers of the R.N.V.S.R. who do periodical training do not expect to be paid for it. But, it is wrong and unfair that these officers, who may have to come long distances to attend a course in H.M.S. "Vernon," should have to pay their travelling expenses. It would help if the Civil Lord could say that consideration will be given to paying their expenses.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This Vote covers £47 million, which is a very large sum of public money. It relates to what is a nationalised industry which does not bring in any revenue. We have other nationalised industries which bring in revenue, but this one brings in nothing at all. I wish to know whether the First Lord is satisfied that there is no waste of any of this money.
I should like, also, to know whether we are justified in having a huge bill for pay for the fleet at present on manocuvres in the Mediterranean. During our debates on the Navy Estimates I quoted from the American Admiralty, showing that there was an immense and powerful American fleet in the Mediterranean. Do we need to have our fleet there as well? Do we need to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on paying for all the retinue of admirals, and the whole paraphernalia, when, presumably, the purpose of the fleet in the Mediterranean is to prevent submarines and Russian ships from leaving the Black Sea?
As these manoeuvres are, presumably, costing a lot of public money, can that expenditure be justified? Should not this huge American fleet be able to bottle up any submarines in the Black Sea without the assistance of our fleet? We have had Mediterranean manoeuvres in the past, but are we justified in continuing them in present circumstances? The very fact that we are asked to foot this huge bill makes me revert to the proposal, which I made repeatedly during the discussion of the Navy Estimates, that we should have a committee of businessmen to examine these Estimates. After all, it was the Prime Minister who said that the Admiralty is full of useless people.

The Chairman: They may be useless people, but even if they are, they come under Vote A and not under this Vote.

Mr. Hughes: Presumably the people whose pay is dealt with under this Vote are directed by the useless people who come under Vote A, but I appreciate that I must not pursue that point.
The very fact that we are carrying on these old-fashioned manoeuvres in the Mediterranean shows that we should have a committee of businessmen—say the chairman of the Prudential Assurance Company and the chairman of the T.U.C., people who have some idea of spending public money—to examine these Estimates. So long as we permit the Admiralty to say, "Oh, yes, £47 million; we shall get that in half an hour," we shall not encourage the necessary spirit of economy for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appealed. I submit that today we are making the Chancellor's Budget speech in advance, and that if we

reduce this figure of £47 million, we shall be making the position easier for him.
The more one reads about these manoeuvres in the Mediterranean the more one feels justified in asking the most searching questions. One sees, for example, that the "Britannia" is there. I wish to know whether any of the £47 million is to be used to pay the crew of the "Britannia." What is the need for the "Britannia" in the Mediterranean at the present time? In reply to questions which we asked about the Navy Estimates, the Civil Lord said that the "Britannia" was a hospital ship. Is she in the Mediterranean in that capacity, or as a royal yacht? I should like to know whether the "Britannia" is now a hospital ship. I wish to be assured that the Duke of Edinburgh is not there as a hospital patient.

Mr. James Hudson: The "Britannia" is quite likely to be a hospital ship, for has not my hon. Friend read in the Press that the Duke of Edinburgh was "killed" twice yesterday?

Mr. Hughes: All I can say is that I hope the resurrection of His Royal Highness will follow shortly. I have not the slightest objection to the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh, but I wish to object to the continuance of camouflaged expense such as this. We know that the "Britannia" has cost £2,100,000, and that this vessel was the subject of a searching inquiry by the Select Committee on Estimates. The Admiralty do not know what to do with this ship. I should like to know whether she is in the Mediterranean as a royal yacht or camouflaged as a hospital ship. The very fact that we have to ask these questions—

The Chairman: The hon. Member may feel that he has to ask such questions, but in this Committee we can only ask about the pay of the crew of the ship.

Mr. Hughes: I am quite sure that the sailors are not there in a voluntary capacity, Sir Charles. They are getting paid. I do not object to their pay. If sailors are to be employed, I believe that they deserve decent pay and conditions. The conditions in this hospital—royal yacht—ship have already come under scrutiny, and I shall not go into that again. But I should like a real explanation of what these sailors are being paid


for during the weeks or days that they are to be in the Mediterranean. Is it not a fact that the Admiralty is indulging in all this expensive frippery simply because the House of Commons does not carry out a very careful pruning of this expenditure? The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) says that £126,000 is too little. I think it is too much. Why should there be this publicity for the Navy? Surely people know that there is a Royal Navy.

Mr. G. R. Howard: There seems to be so much uninformed criticism and talk about the Navy that I thought a little information would be rather useful.

Mr. Hughes: I should be delighted if some of this £126,000 were to be devoted to telling us exactly what the "Britannia" is doing in the Mediterranean. I do not believe that the Navy needs this publicity now. Everybody knows that there is a Navy.

Mr. George Wigg: My hon. Friend seems to have touched off a very important question. Does he appreciate that public money is being used for political propaganda? The money voted for publicity ought to be used to get recruits for the Navy, and not to whitewash the Government.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has raised a serious question. I did not know that the £126,000 was to be used for such publicity.

Mr. Wigg: For the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Howard: No—the Central Office of Information.

Mr. Hughes: I can quite understand my hon. Friend thinking that those two institutions were one and the same. The Government really ought to justify the expenditure of this sum of £126,000 for publicity. Hon. Members opposite have argued over and over again about the publicity carried on by other Departments—

The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where this sum of £126,000 appears in this Vote?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot solve that problem. Sir Charles. The hon. Member for

St. Ives discovered it. I regret it if it is not there. We need the searchlight of publicity upon these Estimates.
I have made my case for having a full explanation of this huge expenditure of £47 million. I believe that we have become used to rushing through these Estimates in a very short time, and the Admiralty now become peeved and grieved whenever we ask important questions. I should like the Civil Lord to assure us, first, that this expenditure of £47 million is necessary; secondly, that every penny being spent upon these Mediterranean manœuvres is necessary in modern conditions and, thirdly—and I hope that he will not try to avoid it—exactly what "Britannia" is doing in this venture, and what it is costing.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Since I represent a constituency which probably has more naval men than any other, I should like to make a few observations upon this Vote. There is no doubt about the difficulty of recruiting men for the lower deck, but there are also many problems connected with the administration of the officer structure. Although £591,500 more is to be allotted this year in respect of officers' pay, the numbers concerned are shown to be less. In his speech last week the First Lord said that nothing he had read gave him any reason to suppose that there would be any axeing among naval officers, but I do not think that the Committee needs to be told that a very great degree of alarm now exists among officers about their future, and that unless something more specific can be said to assure them that they will not be let in for a large axe, the partial demoralisation which I have mentioned elsewhere will continue.
It has come to my knowledge that the splitting of the list has already taken place, and that officers have already been told whether they are on the post list or the general list—or, as they themselves say, on the wet or dry list. Officers now serving at sea, in fairly high positions, have been expressing not a little concern because they have been suddenly informed that they are on the dry list and must be employed ashore in future. In the letter which is being sent to them they are told that there is no prospect of any further employment at sea. It is not surprising that this is causing a certain amount of wonderment and alarm.
4.15 p.m.
Can any statement be made now, or at short notice, about the relative prospects of promotion for officers placed on the dry list? It is inevitably bound to occur to them that if they are on the dry list they will, in effect, no longer be employed as naval officers but more as Admiralty civilians, and they will think it best to seek the earliest opportunity of getting out. Those whom I have met in the last week have all told me that, having been informed that they are on the dry list, they think that it may be time that they took a job in civil life. For their sakes and the sakes of other officers, I should like the Civil Lord to give us some assurance in the matter.
It has been said that there is more future in the Navy for officers upon the dry list than for those upon the wet list—not because alcohol reduces one's expectation of life, but because there are so many more shore establishments, or "stone frigrates," than there are sea-going ships and, therefore, the numbers employed ashore will always be greater. Can my hon. Friend give an estimate of the relative prospect of a long life of service in the Navy for those upon the wet and dry lists respectively?
It has been reported that their Lordships are to set up a new Board of Admiralty to administer the general list, which body is to be referred to as the "Landlords." I was not sure that it was necessarily to be staffed entirely by people who had gone through the Service as naval officers. I should like the Civil Lord to give me some information upon these matters, and also tell me whether officers—such as electricians and engineers—who have now shed their distinction lace are to be employed interchangeably, though coming from different Departments, or whether they will continue under precisely the same conditions of service as before.
May I say how pleased I am—knowing the strains and stresses involved—that officers on the branch list are to have a larger representation in the Navy? My opinion is that their total numbers, on promotion to officers, could be multiplied several times—and not merely added to—without the Navy suffering in any way. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance upon the matters which I have raised.

Mr. E. G. Willis: During the Estimates debate last week I raised the question of artificers' pay and was chided by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), who told me that many people in the Navy thought that they were already paid too much. That was not the point which I was trying to make. I was seeking to compare their pay with that of comparable trades and professions outside. It seems to me that if we are to recruit more men into the Navy—and the White Paper refers to the situation in relation to long service men as being critical—we must ensure that their pay bears some relationship to that in respect of similar jobs outside the Navy.
I am not certain that it does at present. An able seaman gets 11s. a day or £3 17s. a week at most—he may get as little as 9s. 6d.—and if he is married he receives £2 2s. for his wife. Surely no one would say that that was a very good rate of pay which was likely to encourage people to stay in the Service.
If we take the first-class Marine—and I understand from the statement made from the Government Front Bench during the debate on the Estimates that this was one of the branches in which there was a serious shortage—we find the same rate of pay. That does not seem to me to be a sufficient rate of pay for this type of man.I agree, of course, that there has been considerable improvement in the naval rates of pay since the war. I agree, too, that unlike the position in the inter-war period, when the rates of pay tended to be below, in some cases, the rates of pay outside the Service—although owing to the fear of unemployment men were still willing to join—there has been, since the war, a serious endeavour to level things up to comparable conditions outside.
But I must say that when I examine the figures, even taking into full consideration all the various allowances we offer for good conduct, long service, tradesmen's badges, or other allowances, the rates of pay still seem to me to be, whilst comparable, not sufficiently higher than the civil rates ashore to form an incentive for people to stay in the Service. We are in a period of full employment, but when a man passes a certain stage he wants to settle down and to be at home.


and if he is married he wants to be with his wife and family. The man in the Service is without that companionship. He is aboard ship, his conditions are much more uncomfortable, and he probably gets sent away for 18 months' foreign service, or something like that, and does not see his children for a long time.
It seems to me that unless there is incentive of some kind for him to stay—and that incentive, I would suggest, should include the payment of a rather higher rate of pay than the comparable rate of pay outside—he is not going to stay. That is the first question which I wish to ask the Minister—whether, in fact, he is satisfied that there is sufficient inducement in these rates of pay to help to solve that problem.
My second point deals with the relative rates of pay. I remember that while I was in the Navy comparison was always being made in many branches with the rates of pay in the merchant service. I should like to know how the rates of pay—this was a common topic of conversation all the time I was in the Service, which was for a few years—compare with those paid for comparable jobs requiring similar qualifications in the merchant service. I am asking whether this is not one of the things which causes discontent and people to leave.
My third point concerns the junior officer, which Ithink the right hon. Gentleman mentioned during the Estimates debate. Today, the junior officer receives about the same amount of pay, sometimes less, of course, as the chief petty officer in the Service. I wonder whether that is right. There are, I admit, many complications about this. A chief petty officer has probably been in the Service a very long time and getting all sorts of extra pay due to various qualifications which he possesses.
If I may, I will give my own personal experience again. I have met scores of fellows in the artificer branches, third-class artificers and upwards, who refuse to accept promotion or even to try to get promotion because they would be worse off financially. I think that that position is well known. That seems to me to be an enormous waste of manpower and the ultimate reason why so many of these people, at the end of their period of service, went out.

Surely it would have been a good thing for the Service to have been able to retain these men, with their qualifications, long experience, service at sea and familiarity with routine and traditions, which are all going to waste because they consider themselves to be worse off. Any one examining the rates of pay for junior officers in particular must ask himself whether, in fact, we are likely to get what we require when we talk about retaining a proper personnel in the Navy. I wonder whether the Minister can give us some information on these three points which, I think, have an important bearing on this very critical situation of manpower.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: There is one question which I should like to ask, and I should be grateful if I could have an answer when the Civil Lord replies to the debate. I know that, however much we may share the anxieties expressed on both sides of the Committee about the officer structure of the naval service, we must all agree that it is of the greatest importance that we should attract into the Service the very best possible recruits from the schools. What arrangements does the Admiralty make to maintain contact with the schools and to bring the terms of service of the officer to the notice of boys when they are at school? Have any results been forthcoming from experiments made in that direction, and have any criticisms as to the terms of service been going up to the Admiralty as a result of such inquiries?

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I should like to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on the question of rates of pay. What we ought to ask ourselves is: is it not time for a general revision and review of the pay codes? This House is responsible for the rates of pay of the men in the Navy. They have no trade union which will put in a pay claim. I think that one of the best things done by the Labour Government in relation to the Service was their attempt to relate, for the first time, the rates of pay to civilian wages by taking the average wages paid over a period of one year in industry. By estimating roughly the value of the emoluments of the Servicemen, it was possible to try to establish a comparable basis as between the pay in the Services and the pay in civil industry. This has a great bearing on the question of recruitment.
Since then, a number of modifications have taken place as a result of the acts of the Labour Government and of this Government. For example a differentiation has occurred between the pay rates of Regulars and those of conscripts. Differentiation took place last year between the rates of pay of certain long-service volunteers and of volunteers on less service. We now have a multiplicity of codes. We also have a situation in which some of the men in the Service have, comparatively recently, had their pay raised, while others, and in particular the conscripts, have not had their pay and allowances raised for a considerable time.
To a certain extent these men are affected by the rising cost of living when on leave, and their wives are certainly as much affected by the rise in the cost of living as anyone else. Have the Admiralty recently made a comparison between the present pay rates in the Service and the present average wage in industry? It would be a good thing if the Committee were informed of the result of any investigation that has been carried out, because I firmly believe that we should try to maintain the basis which the Labour Government attempted to lay down, keeping the rates of pay in the Service comparable with the movement of wages and salaries in industry. The Navy cannot hope to get the volunteers which it needs in order to get rid of conscription unless it does so.
4.30 p.m.
The second point which I wish to raise refers to the revision of the disciplinary code. We are very strongly dissatisfied with the reply of the Admiralty spokesman on this subject and we still do not know what the Admiralty intends to do. It neither produces legislation to carry out the recommendations of the committees which have shown that the Naval Discipline Act ought to be revised and the naval disciplinary code reviewed, nor will the First Lord of the Admiralty agree to appoint a Select Committee, as was done for the revision of the disciplinary codes in the other Services.
I hope that the Civil Lord will say something on this subject. We want either a Select Committee of the House of Commons to do what was done for the Army and the Royal Air Force, or an assurance that the Admiralty will bring forward legislation based upon the Pilcher Report

and on what has been done by the previous Select Committees.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I wish to enlarge upon what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) about officers who, coincidentally with the introduction of the Navy Estimates here, received a letter saying that they would either be wet or dry, the wet ones being the good and the dry ones the not so good.
Officers who are told that they are not to go to sea again are inclined to think, as it would be reasonable for them to do, that they have failed and are classified as being more or less useless. That is not so at all. These unfortunate people have been told that because the Navy is not so big as it might be there is no chance of their going to sea any more. To a man who joined a Service which entails life at sea, that is a bitter blow.
I hope that the Civil Lord will tell us that special compensation will be offered to these officers, if they wish to get out of the Navy now while they are still comparatively young and to pick up another profession. Obviously, they cannot get where they originally expected to get in the profession they chose when they were young men. This bitter pill can be coated. They should be offered compensation for finding themselves in this position through no failure on their part.

Mr. Wigg: I count myself as fortunate in being called to speak when we have the Minister of Defence with us. I wonder whether he would answer the question I put to him during our debate on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates. I am sure that Committees and, indeed, the country require an answer before we pass this very large sum of public money.
In 1951, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking after my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in the defence debate, was assessing the strength of the Soviet forces and the number of men we should require to meet that threat. He told us on authority that within two years the Soviet Union would have 1,000 submarines. Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough, now that three years have gone by, to tell us whether that estimate was correct. I asked the question previously and did


not get an answer. I observed in "The Times" this morning that the estimate is now 350. How can the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps it may help my hon. Friend if I ask whether he read the last debate on the Navy Estimates, in which the spokesman for the Government inflated the expenditure of the Russian fleet three times, by taking the wrong value of the rouble. Perhaps that is the explanation also in this case.

Mr. Wigg: I thank my hon. Friend for making a reference to that fact. I am dealing with the estimate on the evidence supplied by "The Times" this morning, which shows that the right hon. Gentleman was 300 per cent. wrong.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not deliberately try to embarrass the Labour Government. We all know him far too well to think that he would do anything like that. He never plays politics. Would he be kind enough to tell us whether his estimate was a wild guess or whether he still stands by that figure?

The Chairman: It would not be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question.

Mr. Wigg: I know we are dealing with pay, but it may well be that if the original estimate given by the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and "The Times" was right, the estimate should be much less. We cannot possibly decide on that until we know whether the right hon. Gentleman was telling the truth on that occasion.

The Chairman: Whether the Minister of Defence was telling the truth or not, we cannot deal with that point now.

Mr. Wigg: I am very sorry. The country and the Committee will have to draw their own conclusions about it. I hope that I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the realms of poetry. If I did, I should probably be out of order. Perhaps on some future occasion he will tell us how he arrived at that remarkable estimate and whether he still stands by it or not.
We are extremely fortunate, also, in having with us an ex-Minister of Defence,

my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I hope that he will take note of the fact that the Government of the day have deliberately evaded the demand made from both sides of the Committee for an inquiry into naval discipline. It will be regrettable if this becomes a party question, because there is common ground that the discipline of the Royal Navy ought to be above politics.
The Select Committee that inquired into the discipline in the Army and the Royal Air Force has finished its job and the Bill that it drafted is shortly to become law. It is not asking too much of the Government to give an undertaking that they will this Session set up a Select Committee to inquire into naval discipline; or, if they do not like that procedure, will introduce a new Naval Discipline Bill. All we got the other night was evasion. That was not good enough, and that is why I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington is here.
If we cannot get an assurance from the Government I hope that my right hon. Friend will take a Supply day before the end of the Session and put down a Motion on this subject. We have pleaded for this revision over and over again, but there has been no attempt whatever to meet us. It may well be that we shall be told why the Government will hot take action in this matter.
Still keeping well within the bounds of order, Sir Charles, I turn to Vote I, Subhead K, which deals with bounties. We always get sensational information from the Government on the day before a big debate, or in the course of the debate, as we recently did about General Templer going to the Colonies on the day of the Army Estimates. This was done to quieten any criticism about the administration of the Army, but I should be out of order if I proceeded with that.
About a year ago we had an announcement from the Ministry of Defence that at about 5 o'clock there would be a paper in the Vote Office on bounties, etc. I would like to hear from the Civil Lord how those bounties have worked in the Admiralty. Good luck to the chaps who got the bounty under this Vote. Has the bounty persuaded any of them who were thinking of returning to civil life to stay on in the Navy, or was the announcement anything more a little bit of sugar


for the birds? Has it served any practical purpose at all or does it come about because of the policy which the Army has had to adopt as a result of the Secretary of State for War's appalling failure? Has the Navy had to allocate £120,000 in the 1954–55 Estimates without any practical results?
It was obvious from the speech of the First Lord, introducing the Navy Estimates, that the Navy is beginning to get worried about its recruiting. This is a very serious matter indeed, because so far the Navy has had the good fortune not to have worries about recruits. Men have taken on easily. While the Army, ever since the end of the war, has been hag-ridden about the shortage of recruits, this has not been a problem in the Navy.
I congratulated the First Lord during that debate on the fact that he has set up an inquiry to see what has happened. He is not as stubborn or as puffed up with his own importance, or as incompetent, as the Secretary of State for War. He has done something about it. But we have to be careful to see that in facing this alarming problem the Navy does not come out with a brand new policy which simply subtracts recruits from the Air Force and the Army, leaving those Services with a problem.
I should like to hear from the Minister of Defence that he intends to make sure that the manpower policy of all three Services is co-ordinated and that it will not be a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. What I think should happen is not that we should have simply an inquiry into the Navy, but that we should have an inquiry covering all three Services, because it is quite clear that even the Secretary of State for War is now learning the elementary lesson which any staff officer learned on his first day as a commissioned officer—that there are only a given number of recruits.
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for War has entered the Chamber, because I am on one of my favourite and inexhaustible subjects—his incompetence. He has learned the lesson, for he admitted this year that there are only a given number of men who will join the Fighting Services and who like undertaking Regular engagements, and that if the Army gets two of them and there are only three, then the other two Services have to fight for the odd man.

This is, therefore, a problem which faces all Services, and while I congratulate the First Lord on his vigour and drive in setting up an inquiry, I should prefer the inquiry to be undertaken by the Minister of Defence, because I fear that all that will happen is that we shall add to the bill without increasing the total number of recruits. It is the policy of the Labour Party—and, I think, a wise policy—to press for an inquiry into the working of the National Service Act, and I wish my right hon. Friends would go a little further and press the Government for an inquiry not only into the working of the National Service Act but also into Regular recruiting as a whole, not because I think the facts are not known—

The Chairman: I have been very generous to the hon. Gentleman and I hope he will not pursue this question too far. The Vote concerns only pay.

Mr. Wigg: I am dealing with pay, Sir Charles, because, obviously, if we have more Regular recruits, then the make-up of the bill would be quite different. Nevertheless, I will not trespass on your kindness for more than another minute.
I do not think that such an inquiry would elicit any new facts. They are well known. But it could lead to a sharing of the responsibility on both sides of the Committee in seeking a solution to this problem without which we shall go on year after year adding to the bill for pay for recruits in each Service without getting any more recruits.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: In accordance with your Ruling, Sir Charles, I shall not attempt to give an answer on behalf of the Minister of Defence to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the number of Russian submarines. I want to relate certain remarks made on recruiting publicity to the damage done by the statement of the Minister of Defence, made when he was in opposition, because it is now apparent. I believe that it has an effect on the validity of propaganda for Navy recruiting when false figures are given in the House.
I well remember that on that occasion the present Minister of Defence raised


the matter rather as a query. He mentioned a figure of a thousand Russian submarines and another hon. Member mentioned a million Russian submarines. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is now acquainted with the facts, and so is the Admiralty and the Admiralty public relations department. I do not consider that propaganda of the kind which was put out during the summer about the size of the Russian Navy—certain facts which I will say without hesitation were incorrect and must have been known to be incorrect—should be used in order to obtain recruits.
I ask the Civil Lord to look into the policy followed by the public relations department in the Admiralty about the number of Russian submarines, because if we try to draw people into the Navy by suggesting something which, on investigation, they can later find to be misleading, then it does the Navy no good service at all. The majority of this figure of 350 submarines is still largely made up of obsolescent submarines which are likely to play no effective part in any future war.
Still keeping within the rules of order, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, I want to turn to the question of the lodging allowance, and on this subject—Vote 1, Subhead F—I want to ask a question about the position of the establishment on shore of a distinguished naval officer who goes by the name of "Cinceastlant," who is also C.-in-C. Home Fleet and a number of other people all at the same time. "Cinceastlant" has now decided—and I have mentioned this on a previous occasion—that during war or during naval manoeuvres it is desirable for him to have his flag with "Cincaireastlant."
In order to do that, he has to live within a few miles of London, and I notice that under Vote 1, Subhead F there is provision for lodging allowance for those members of the Navy who live within 10 miles of Charing Cross. Cincaireastlant, and therefore Cinceastlant, live just a little further than 10 miles from Charing Cross, because in fact they live at Northwood. There is no secret about that. It is not only desirable that Cinceastlant should be there but also that he should have a permanent staff there. It has been very noticeable in recent

manoeuvres that when "Cinceastlant" goes ashore or when C.-in-C. Home Fleet suddenly becomes Cinceastlant—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend explain who is this mysterious Cinceastlant?

Mr. Shackleton: "Cinceastlant" has command of that part of the North Atlantic which "Saclant" has allowed the British to have. I could continue on this subject at some length, including some rules which the Prime Minister made about the territorial definition.
Although this use of terms may seem a little far from Vote 1, in fact it relates specifically to the numbers who receive lodging allowance, because I believe that the numbers receiving lodging allowance should be increased; because when these operations take place, the Admiral and his sea-going staff come ashore and go into a large operations room. They have to find their way about it, for a start. They are not trained in that kind of work, and I believe it is of the most utmost importance that permanent shore-based staffs should be established for the efficient conduct of these operations.
I am not raising this point lightly, because it was obvious to many officers during the recent exercise that the policy of the Navy of bringing back sea-going officers from almost anywhere in order to staff an operations room does not make for the efficient conduct of operations.

Dr. H. Morgan: It is all very mysterious.

Mr. Shackleton: It is very mysterious.
I believe that lodging allowance should be increased by the total amount necessary in order to ensure that an adequate permanent shore staff, possibly made up of reservists and possibly made up of Regular Navy men, can be given to Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): A number of very interesting points have been raised on this Vote. I will attempt to deal with them more or less in the order in which they were raised.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was in regard to recruitment. That point was also touched upon by the


hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The question of recruitment was referred to at some length in our Estimates debate not very long ago and, in particular, the question of conditions of service for the lower deck was debated when we discussed the Amendment. As I endeavoured to point out then, quite a lot has been done to improve conditions and, therefore, we hope, recruiting. But it is essentially a long-term problem, and it takes a little time for these necessarily varied measures to have the desired effect.
It is true that about 10,000 will be the number of National Service men we shall have during the next year, but I should like to reassure the hon. Member that it is not our intention to increase that proportion, and that we are very anxious to get as many volunteers as we can. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend has decided to hold the inquiry into the whole question of manpower.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman referred to a figure of 10,000 National Service men for the Royal Navy during the coming year, but paragraph 62 of the Statement on Defence says 7,500. Why was the policy amended?

Mr. Digby: I have not got the figures in front of me, but perhaps I can clear that point up later.
I think I should be in some difficulty if I dealt with the question of the R.N.V.R. at some length because the appropriate Estimate comes under Vote 7. Although there may be difficulties arising from the conversion of the Fleet Air Arm units to jets during the coming year, we are not dissatisfied with the general recruiting position in the R.N.V.R.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, spoke about the officer structure. That is a very important point. My right hon. Friend made a very full statement on the new officer structure in the debate the other day. The question of the branch list officers has also been raised. That is still under consideration by the Committee considering these matters which made the main recommendations. It is a matter about which no final decision has been reached.
I have been asked about the division of the lists. Obviously it is a very difficult matter for those who have to make the

decision upon which list a certain officer should be placed. As has been mentioned, a letter is written to the officer explaining that the chances of promotion on the general list are good. There are good chances of promotion up to captain and Hag rank on the general list. A lot of attention has been given to that matter.
I have been asked whether there is any question of appeal. It would be very difficult to have an appeal on a question of this kind, although I realise well how much it may mean to an officer to hear one way or the other. I can say that in certain circumstances representations would be considered, but I do not think it would be feasible to have any general right of appeal. I wish to stress that because a particular officer is not on the post list but on the general list he should not be too disappointed, as there will be many prospects open to him if he is an officer of ability—many prospects on the general list. This point was also mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). I hope that what I have said deals with the point which he had in mind.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East also referred to the Fleet Air Arm and asked how it would be affected by the split list. The answer is that some officers will continue in the Fleet Air Arm and occupy posts up to and including flag rank for which an officer with those qualifications is desirable, and others, after seven years, will join the general list with the same chances of going forward and of promotion as they would have had previously had they been doing duties of another kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) raised the question of publicity expenditure, most of which is borne by the Central Office of Information. The reason is that it is thought desirable—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this in order on this Vote?

The Chairman: I was noting how the Civil Lord was developing his argument. So far he has been keeping in order rather cleverly.

Mr. Digby: We are spending more on this matter in one way or another than we did last year. My hon. Friend thought visits to coastal towns very desirable for


publicity purposes. We go into that list very carefully. The list for next summer has not yet been decided upon, but we shall do our best to visit the coastal towns.
My hon. Friend raised the question of schools liaison, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). In each of the four Commands we have an officer who is occupied with schools liaison work. We also have one or two officers at headquarters who go round dealing with that question. They do their best to get round to the right schools and get people who may come forward fully interested in the Navy. We have favourable reports on the activities of those officers.
As to the expenses of officers in the R.N.V.S.R., the answer is that they are in the same position as comparable officers in the other Services, and it is not possible to extend to them allowances which are not received in the other Services.
We had an intervention by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in which he asked whether the very important exercises in the Mediterranean were really necessary. I can assure him that they are. We consider that those exercises will teach us valuable lessons.
He went on to ask about the total of the Vote. Again I can give him an assurance. All these figures have geen gone into very carefully at the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will know the process only too well. We have been into the figures very carefully, and we believe that the money we are asking for is absolutely necessary. The "Britannia" has been playing the part of a hospital ship, as no doubt the hon. Member has read in the Press. Incidentally, those who form the complement of the "Britannia" are volunteers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) raised the very important point, which stands out in Vote 1, that, although the numbers are somewhat reduced, the amount of pay for which we are asking is higher. That shows the extent to which pay is improving in the Navy. That is one of my answers to several hon. Members who are anxious as to whether at present pay is realistic and comparable with that in outside industry.
5.0 p.m.
The hon. Member then went on to speak about the fears among naval officers of the possibility of taxing. My right hon. Friend the First Lord made a careful statement on this subject in his speech the other day, and made it plain that at present he did not foresee any likelihood of axing. I should not like to go any further than my right hon. Friend's statement, which are carefully thought out.
Regarding the receipt of letters stating whether an officer is on one list or another, it is true that letters have gone out, but only in the case of junior captains and junior commanders. I need not say more about the split list at this point, because I have already dealt with it.

Dr. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us at all about the interchange-ability of officers who have previously been in different branches, with different distinction cloth, but who now all wear the same uniform?

Mr. Digby: Certainly. Iam afraid, however, that complete interchangeability would not be possible between the branches, because many of the tasks are of a specialist nature; but there may, perhaps, be a movement in that direction at a later date. My hon. Friend mentioned also the question of promotion prospects. As I have emphasised, promotion prospects on the general list will be good, and officers should not believe otherwise.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) dealt at length with the question of pay and how it compared with the rates for outside industry. It is always very difficult to compare Service pay with the pay of outside industry, because many factors of one kind and another—for example, food and lodging—have to be taken into account. Only last April we introduced the new pay code, and we have introduced the sea-going local overseas allowance. We wish to give the new pay code a chance, because we believe that, given time, it will show good results.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is going a bit far when he describes the White Paper, published on the day of last year's defence debate, as introducing a new pay code. All that it did was to give bounties and pay increases to men who re-engage or extend their service. In no sense was it a pay code.

Mr. Digby: There have been substantial differences. I have already pointed out that the increases in pay in these Estimates alone are about £5½ million.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also raised the question of junior officers who receive less than chief petty officers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) raised a similar example in the debate the other day. As a general rule, we hope to avoid that kind of situation, but hard cases make bad law, and it would be a mistake to assume that that kind of thing happens very often.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) also raised the question of rates of pay, and how far the Admiralty moved in relation to the movement of wages in industry. As I have said, our rates of pay were adjusted as recently as last April.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to get away with that. If he does, will he answer this question? What proportion of men in the Navy have received pay increases since 1951? The hon. Gentleman talks about a new pay code which was introduced last year. I should like to know what percentage of men in the Navy have benefited from those pay increases, and the percentage of men who have had no pay increases for the last four years.
How recently has the Admiralty made a comparison between the average outside wage and the present rates of Service pay, and with what result? The hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult to make this comparison, but it was done by all the Service Departments in 1948. Are we to understand that the idea of making a comparison between civilian wages and the Services has now been abandoned?

Mr. Digby: The comparison is frequently made. I could not give figures of the number of officers and ratings who have received pay increases in the last year; I should require notice of that.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme went on to deal with discipline in the Navy. It would be out of order for me to deal with legislation on a Supply day, so that all I can say is that we are looking carefully at that matter. We are watching the progress of the Army Bill on a similar subject, and when we have

seen what happens to it we are prepared to consider the question of a Select Committee. My right hon. Friend will not reach a decision until he sees how the Army Bill develops.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) raised several matters, including the lodging allowance of "Cinceastlant" staff. I was grateful for the hon. Member's suggestion. I would say that he has used his time in the Services to good purpose in view of his suggestion that it might be desirable to have permanent staff ashore. That is certainly a question which we shall consider. It is the kind of thing which will be facilitated by the new officer structure of the Navy, and perhaps it will make that kind of question a little easier to solve. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion. We shall look into it. That disposes, I think, of all the questions raised on this Vote.
I should like, in conclusion, merely to stress again that there is a very considerable increase in the amount of pay per officer and man which we are asking for next year.

Mr. Wigg: Would you consider, Sir Charles, accepting a Motion, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again? We have been given sets of figures which are utterly bewildering. In paragraph 62 of the Statement on Defence, 1955, under the heading "National Service Requirements," we are told that in 1955–56 the Navy will be allocated 7,500 National Service men. In paragraph 56 of the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, 1955–56, we are told:
It is planned to enter about 5,000 national servicemen into the Navy in 1955–56.
Now, this afternoon, the Civil Lord comes down to the House of Commons and tells us that the number is 10,000. How can we possibly consider these Estimates and the Vote on pay when we have been given three different statements? It would be much more satisfactory, Sir Charles, if you were to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, while the Government make up their minds which of the three figures is correct.

Mr. Digby: The answer is simple. Five thousand a year for two years makes 10,000.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his suggestion, if only so that I might register a protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was told that the First Lord would not be here today. I am all in favour of Ministers being on operations to gain experience and to be better qualified to answer questions in the House, but the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, who was to have been present, is unwell—we are sorry to hear it—and a Minister's first responsibility is to the House. I do not think that the First Lord is so far away that he could not have got an aircraft and attended. Clearly, as my hon. Friend has said, we are not getting satisfactory answers or explanations appropriate to the material and matters that we have to consider. In those circumstances, I support my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Wigg: May I complete my remarks, Sir Charles? I gave way to the Civil Lord, who gave that smart answer. This is what the hon. Gentleman's Explanatory Statement says:
It is planned to enter about 5,000 national Service men into the Navy in 1955–56.
There is nothing there about multiplying the figure by two. Likewise, paragraph 62 of the Statement on Defence (Cmd. 9391)—I apologise for having to read it all, but in view of the lamentable misinterpretation to which I have been subjected I am compelled to do so—says:
On present estimates of Regular recruiting and prolongations of engagements, the Services will require in 1955–56 to enter about 198,000 National Service men, or men who undertake Regular engagemnts in lieu …

Navy
…
…
…
7,500."

The Chairman: It will save the time of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) if I tell him now that I cannot accept his suggestion. The question he raises has nothing to do with this Vote. It is Vote A that he is
talking about.

Mr. Callaghan: I think we must try to obtain a better explanation than we have had so far from the Civil Lord of the discrepancy between the Statement on Defence and the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates. I confess I had not noticed it myself. The Statement on Defence says that the Navy will call up 7,500 National Service men this year.

The Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates says the number is to be 5,000.

Mr. Wigg: We are told 10,000.

The Chairman: It has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. It is claimed that this is an accurate estimate of the pay required, and it is on the basis of its accuracy that we discuss it. You will be aware, Sir Charles, that there is a difference between the pay of the National Service men, the conscripts, and the Regulars, and a variation in the number of men called up must make a difference to the total of this Estimate.
It is quite clear that one or other of these State documents is inaccurate. The Statement on Defence says that the conscripts in the Navy will number 7,500 in the coming year. The Admiralty memorandum says 5,000. We want to know which of these figures is correct, and until we do so we cannot discuss this Estimate as being accurate.
I submit to you, Sir Charles, that we should report Progress, at any rate until such time as the Minister of Defence can tell us how many conscripts it is intended to call up at the lower rates in the next 12 months, so that we can judge whether this is a correct Estimate of the pay or not.

The Chairman: The hon. Member said he wanted to raise a point of order, and that is not a point of order.

Mr. Swingler: Surely it is a matter of order whether the Estimates are accurate or not?

Mr. Wigg: Surely the question of how many National Service men are borne on this Vote has a bearing on the total amount of the Vote? It was part of the Civil Lord's case that the pay bill had gone up during the current year, but the question of the Regulars' pay has nothing to do with the National Service men. The number of men will depend on the amount that will be voted.

Mr. Digby: I do not want there to be any misapprehension, and I should like to clear up any doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. The figure of 7,500 was a rough calculation of men of National Service age who would be called up for the Navy. Of those 2,500 are expected to


take Regular engagements, leaving 5,000 on ordinary call-up. The two figures add up to 7,500, the figure mentioned in the Statement on Defence. The figure of 5,000 National Service men is the number of Natioal Service men expected to be called up, and not just the number of men of National Service age. It includes men who engage as volunteers.

Mr. Wigg: That is all very well as far as it goes, but we must have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman or from the Minister of Defence or from the First Lord that care will be taken next year, in preparing the White Paper on defence and the Navy Estimates, to get these rough calculations less rough. It is as though the hon. Gentleman had made a guess or played dominoes to get the answer. It bears no relation to the facts.

The Chairman: That point will not arise until next year.

Mr. Callaghan: The First Lord told me of his proposal to go to the Mediterranean, and as far as it had anything to do with me, I said I thought it was an excellent idea that he should see what is happening out there. It is very unfortunate that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary should have fallen ill yesterday. The Civil Lord has done his best and given us a painstaking answer, but perhaps by Thursday, when we reach the Report stage, the First Lord will be back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £50,604,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,945,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: There is a matter under the subhead for clothing that I want to bring up. The allotment system does not seem to be working as well as it ought, and I have had considerable

correspondence with the First Lord about it during the last 12 months. This system is a privilege which is given to, I suppose, both naval ratings and to the tradesmen who benefit by it. Under it, a naval rating makes an allotment of part of his pay to a tradesman in respect of the uniform with which the tradesman supplies him. His debt to the tradesman is paid off at regular monthly intervals.
What I fear is that a number of tradesmen have been exceeding the reasonable limits of credit, and that whereas reputable civilian and naval outfitters allow a credit for, say, 12 months, others have been allowing credit for from three to four years. That means that a young naval rating in his early twenties, who has to make an allotment to the naval tailor of £1 a month, may be incurring a debt in respect of uniform supplied to him of from £20 to £30, and taking on a liability which will last for as long as two or three years.
A great many of them, when they have their suits, of course pay off their debt, faithfully and regularly through the allotment system under which an amount is deducted from their pay. There are a few irresponsible younger men who, having got their suits, decide that what they really want is a motor bike, and they then stop the allotment. I am sure that this is a practice which the Navy would not like. However, this sort of thing happens, and we in this Committee have some duty to see that the younger men in the navy are not led into temptation by the allowing of extraordinary credits of this sort for such long periods.
We have also some right to say that these naval outfitters who are supplying them should not tempt them in that way. I do not hold any particular brief for naval outfitters. I have myself in my time made an allotment to repay a credit which, I am happy to say, was paid off. However, this matter has been a source of grievance, and so I would ask the Civil Lord to tell us what the policy of the Admiralty is about it, and whether the number of ratings who are defaulting on their allotments is increasing, and whether the Admiralty has any changes in policy to propose as a result of the defalcations brought to their notice by me, and, I believe, by others in the last 12 months.

Mr. Digby: The Admiralty has been giving thought to this question as the result of the respresentations of the hon. Gentleman, and also for other reasons. It is obviously difficult to decide how far one should interfere with the freedom of choice of ratings in making these allotments. We are watching the position, and if there should be a growing tendency to abuse these allotments, we should consider the necessity of taking some action in the matter, but I am not in the position to day to announce any change. We are still considering the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,945,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,224,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will let us know, even if he cannot do so now, as much as possible of the interest the Admiralty has been taking in the trials of this new turbojet boat, the "Bluebird." Over the week-end I saw this remarkable boat, which is capable of attaining, from a standing start, a speed of 150 m.p.h. in a quarter of a mile. It seems to me that this might have a possible naval application in future for such craft as coastal M.T.B.S, which could go on their secondary engines to the place from which they were expected to operate and then, with this enormous power, could deliver an attack before anyone knew anything about it.
I have received information from Mr. Donald Campbell, whose wonderful work has been going on painstakingly over the last few years, and to whom I am sure we all owe a great debt of gratitude. He tells me that the American Navy has asked for details of his craft. It is obvious, therefore, that the U.S. Navy is interested and I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to tell me at

some time that our Navy is taking an interest in this matter.

Mr. Shackleton: The Committee should look on Vote 6, which involves a sum of over £15 million, with a very favourable eye. It is rather pleasing to find at least one item in the war-making equipment of the Navy a great deal of which serves the community and mankind in general. It is very pleasant for me to be able to say these nice things about the Navy, and I am sure that we should recognise that the Navy and the Admiralty and the hydrographer have rendered great services in this important sphere. Few people realise how much important fundamental research work is carried out under the auspices of this Vote.
I should like to inquire in particular about two matters. I, equally, do not expect the Civil Lord to answer now, but since the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) has mentioned "Bluebird" I should like to know what research is being done on hydrofoil boats. The Americans are doing a great deal of research and the Germans used these boats during the war. It might well be that the application of hydrofoil boats for transportation at sea might swing the balance from the air to the sea, because of the greater economies and the speed obtained
I know that Admiralty policy is to let the Americans do research of which we are kept informed, and I appreciate that the Admiralty does not want to waste limited resources in investigating something when it knows that it will have the benefit of research by others, but hydrofoil development is going on in Europe. A German company run by a Dr. Sachsenburg is designing these boats not merely for naval use, but for civil use on lakes and on the sea. I do not expect the Civil Lord to answer now, but I ask the Admiralty to look again comprehensively at work done in what may, in the long run, be a very important sphere.
There is another point in which I have a specific interest. I ask the Civil Lord to ask the First Lord to do all that he can to support the expedition which we hope will go out, with a large grant from the British Government, to cross the Antarctic Continent. This expedition will carry out a plan which was proposed forty years ago, but which never came


to success because the ship of the expedition concerned was crushed in the ice. The expedition, which is being led by Dr. Fuchs, has apparently aroused sufficient support in Her Majesty's Government for the unprecedented grant of £100,000 to be given to it.
The Service Departments, and particularly the Admiralty and the Navy, have long had a remarkable history of pioneering exploration, especially in Polar regions and I ask that, quite apart from money, every support should be given to this expedition. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), who was a distinguished participant in expeditions to Graham Land and in the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, will share my views that full support should be given to the expedition.
I should also like to ask what plans the Admiralty have for co-operation in the International Geophysical Year. The Civil Lord will be aware that the Geophysical Year is the natural inheritor of the Polar Year. It represents a combined international effort to investigate fundamental problems connected with the earth's magnetism and so on. It is encouraging that the majority of nations, including the Soviet Union, are taking part, and it would be interesting to know how far the Admiralty and the Services are involved in that undertaking.

Mr. Digby: There is very little that I can say in reply, except to thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) for raising these matters. We will watch the trials of "Bluebird" and consider what lessons we may learn from them. There may be valuable lessons, although there are points of difference between "Bluebird" and anything likely to be useful to us. We shall certainly consider the other points which the hon. Member for Preston, South raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,224,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 9. NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £27,845,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of naval armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,888,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend the Civil Lord tell us what is the average time which is spent by a man in barracks? This question was lightly touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in a previous debate. I do not expect an answer now, but I should like it later. This is important when we are discussing the Navy in the nuclear age and the question of decentralisation. I wonder whether something could be done in the intervening period on the basis that men should go to the torpedo establishments where they are trained or, for instance, to the signals establishment at Haslemere, in the Meon Valley. Thereby, we should have men coming from such establishments direct. We should cut down on barracks and have some form of decentralisation and of manning which eventually would help in replanning the barracks.

Mr. Callaghan: This is the Civil Lord's own Vote and, therefore, he will know a great deal about it. It is largely for new works and alterations since last year. That may or may not be right. What is wrong is to replace temporary accommodation barracks by permanent accommodation on the present sites. It is madness for the Admiralty to proceed with large concentrations of men in Portsmouth, Chatham and Devonport, gathered together at the outbreak of another war.
Part of this Vote is intended for that purpose, and I say to the Civil Lord that, although he has got off very lightly this afternoon for reasons which we need not go into, unless he can report some reconsideration of this policy by next year and unless he has some statement as to


how the Admiralty will deal with their calling up problems in order to avoid this concentration of men into confined areas, who are going to be extremely vulnerable, he will have a somewhat tougher time than he has had so far.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,888,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st dav of March, 1956.

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £16,448,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: We should not allow this Vote to pass without warning the spokesman of the Admiralty that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are far from satisfied with the position of retired pay and conditions in the Services. I do not propose to deploy the case again, because the Under-Secretary of State for War was given a considerable shaking on the subject by some of his hon. Friends a few nights ago, but none of the Service Ministers must feel satisfied with the meagre retired pay and pensions concessions given by the Government last year.
Those who have really studied this subject reveal the fact that there still remain officers and men who are drawing pensions the rates of which were fixed as far back as 1878. There are some of these in all three Services, and it shows the scandalous state of affairs which has been existing for some time owing to the neglect of these pensioners by successive Governments. I hope the Civil Lord will pass on to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty the reminder that we have not forgotten this subject, and that it will undoubtedly be raised during the coming year.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), and to make a suggestion

which might be considered possibly in the coming year. It was made to me by a chief yeoman of signals, who lives in my constituency and is a great friend or mine. He said that if a man goes through one of the Services and then enters Government service—he himself has joined the Post Office—could not a way be found of working out his pension so that he has a continuous pension for his Government service, and not one for the Navy and then a different scheme of pension when he goes into the Post Office? He suggests that it might be a help to a man who is going into the Navy to know that if he serves the Government in any way he will get a pension which would not suffer by reason of his entering another branch of the Government's service.

Mr. Digby: I am quite aware of the feelings of hon. Members of the Committee on this subject of retired pay and pensions, but it is a question of the Government's general policy, and I think the Committee will understand that I cannot possibly add anything to the Government statements which have been made.
I will certainly look into the suggestion put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), although I was under the impression that something of the kind could be done if someone served in one of the Services and then joined a civil Department. I thought he would be allowed to count his naval time some way or other, but without notice I could not give the Committee any more information.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £16,448,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 14. MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I make no apology for raising the question of shipbuilding and repairs on this Vote. I am surprised to see only an


item of £21,000 in the Vote, but the explanatory notes reveal that some items appear in Votes 10, 11 and 13, so I assume that this £21,000 is a minimum figure, and there is apparently a larger sum devoted to this purpose.
The explanatory notes tell why the Vote is now so small. It is the result of dispensing with the functions of the Admiralty in the production of merchant ships. That was taken over in 1939 and continued during the war, but now the production of merchant ships has been handed over the the shipbuilding companies and the industry is dependent upon the companies in obtaining orders for the shipbuilding yards. The explanatory notes say:
As a result, the Vote is now small, but it has been retained in order to bring out the Admiralty's continued responsibility as the production authority for the merchant shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries and for maintaining contact with these industries on all matters of common concern.
It has been retained as a symbol that the Admiralty is still responsible for merchant shipbuilding and shipbuilding repairs.
We are told that the Russians have built over 1,000 submarines, so I should have thought that merchant shipbuilding, the maintenance of the facilities for extension, and research into new techniques would be on the list of top priorities in the Admiralty programme.
There is in my constituency the best firm of shipbuilders in the world. I will not say "one of the best"; I say "the best," John Brown and Company. The other evening I heard one of my hon. Friends say that he came from the finest city in the world. He comes from Glasgow, and I say that the finest shipbuilding firm in the world is in my constituency.
The position of John Brown's is not difficult at the moment, but on the Clyde there is difficulty in shipbuilding. Is the Admiralty responsible for shipbuilding and marine engineering, in view of the Russian submarine threat? The Prime Minister has told us that we have only three or four years, and I should have thought that the Admiralty would have told us what it is doing to help the shipbuilding industry in research and in many other directions.

One of the difficulties we are faced with in the shipbuilding industry—and the policy of the present Government is making it worse—is the assistance which Governments everywhere are giving to their shipbuilding industries in the form of easier credit facilities. I do not know whether the Admiralty has any influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is responsible for the shipbuilding industry and I hope it will use its influence with the Chancellor to see that proper credit facilities are provided for shipbuilding.
If we were again to be faced with war, then, once again, the Government would have to take over control of shipbuilding. The Merchant Navy and the Navy will have to be integrated. They were looked upon in wartime as almost a single unit, because one is complementary to the other. In wartime we have always had grave difficulty in getting food supplies and raw materials to this country.
We all know how the figures of British shipbuilding and the British Mercantile Marine are being reduced in terms of world figures, and the United States Government with their "fifty-fifty" rule are acting against the interests of British shipbuilding. If we have any faith in our Mercantile Marine and in our Navy something should be done quickly to preserve our shipbuilding industry. It is true that there are enough orders on the books to last for two years, and that there are ship-repairing facilities on the Clyde and at other places, but we have no graving dock suitable for taking some of the tankers of 20,000 to 30,000 tons that are being launched.
In view of the present world situation the position is serious, so I ask the Civil Lord, when preparing this Vote for next year, to examine the problem of British shipbuilding, not in the light of the superior techniques of our competitors, not because of their better workmanship or because of their better productive capacity, but in the light of the deliberate action of other Governments which is acting adversely against British shipbuilding.
We on the Clyde are confident that our shipwrights and platers, our carpenters and joiners, and our companies can compete with any yards in the world, given


a fair financial credit basis. But the Government must be behind us, as the Government of Germany and the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States are behind their shipbuilders. British shipbuilding industry cannot fight a lone battle.
After all, this industry produces splendid profits for the shipbuilders and, through freights, it produces splendid profits for the owners of the merchant fleets. Here is an opportunity for the Government to compensate for some of the great expenses incurred by the Navy in protecting that shipping. The Government could take over shipbuilding and then what we lost on the roundabouts we could make up on the swings. That seems to me a fair proposition and I believe that it would not be a sufficient argument to say that, if our merchant shipbuilding were State controlled, it would be inefficient. I have never been able to agree with some of my hon. Friends who say that the Admiralty and the Navy are inefficient. I think that the British Navy is efficient and I do not think that Britain would have reached her position in the world today if that had not been the case.
I therefore plead for the Clyde shipbuilding industry. I was surprised to learn from the answer to a recent Question that none of the shipbuilders on the Clyde has applied for licences for building ships for the Soviet Union, presumably because they have had no inquiries. The Admiralty is responsible for shipbuilding in this country, and, therefore, responsible for maintaining shipbuilding facilities. It is important, therefore, that the facilities should be kept working because, if machinery is allowed to become rusty, it is a job to get it going again. I suggest that the Civil Lord might get in touch with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to taking the building of ships for the Soviet Union out of the strategic list. I understand that they must be ships of under—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Arthur Colegate): Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member but he is going a little wide of this Vote.

Mr. Bence: I began to develop a conscience, Sir Arthur, that perhaps I was out of order, but I have always found it difficult to keep in order. [An HON.

MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman was out of order ten minutes ago."] Then that only shows how generous you have been to me, Sir Arthur.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope you will allow me to pursue this point for the sake of future discussion, Sir Arthur. Last year we had a very wide debate on the future of British shipbuilding because the Admiralty is in charge of it. That debate included considerable reference to the policy of licensing for building for other countries. While we all understand your Ruling, I hope that you were not intending it to mean that the Chair was narrowing our discussion so that we could not in future raise the question of licensing, which is the responsibility of the Admiralty.

5.45 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: No, that is the position only on this Vote. There are other opportunities for discussing the whole of that policy.

Mr. Bence: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Arthur, and I leave that point. I do not know whether my last point will be in order. It is about conversions.
I do not know whether conversions come under merchant shipping and repairs, but I will take a chance on it. I have said already that we have on the Clyde ship-repairing facilities idle; in fact, the repairing situation on the Clyde is serious. Some of our men have been employed in the construction of naval work for many years, as have their fathers. This area is safer than Portsmouth and Chatham and it seems right that as much conversion as possible should be carried out there to keep those facilities in being.
It is futile, in these days, to believe that if our platers and shipwrights on the Clyde become idle they will simply wait until orders come along. They will not; they will be gone. One of the problems of a great basic industry like this one is that, if it is allowed to become idle, the labour is dispersed and it is difficult to get back. The housing situation has almost destroyed the mobility of labour.
It is imperative for the safety of Britain, for the continuance of our Mercantile Marine, for keeping together our highly skilled teams of workers on the Clyde, who are the best in the world, that the Admiralty should pay special attention,


when issuing orders for conversions, when considering plans, to see that the Clyde is fully employed on the repairing and building side. I hope, therefore, that we shall get a graving dock in the near future.

Mr. G. R. Howard: On this Vote I would like to deal with two points referred to by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). First, I hope that their Lordships of the Admiralty are bearing in mind the necessity for research in the speeds of modern ships because, in view of the higher underwater speeds of submarines today, the speed of a convoy or of ships proceeding independently is a vital factor.
I also want to touch on the important matter of flag discrimination. The Navy Estimates tell us, in page 213, that the Vote
… has been retained in order to bring out the Admiralty's continued responsibility as the production authority for the merchant shipbuilding, ship-repairing and marine engineering industries and for maintaining contact with these industries on all matters of common concern.
I call a matter of common concern the present attitude of the American Government on flag discrimination. It is not right to call it a "fifty-fifty" rule. It is not. It is 50 per cent. to them and 50 per cent. to the rest, including America. It was all right when they were sending us gifts, but it should not be allowed now that it is merchandise. I hope, therefore, that their Lordships will bring pressure to bear upon the appropriate Governments and other Departments to make our views on this practice clear to the Americans.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I want to follow some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), with many of which I agree. However, I am sure that he, like other hon. Members, will not expect me to agree with his observations about the Clyde. There is on the Clyde a great shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, and no one would wish to belittle the importance of either the area or the yard which he mentioned, but the Committee will not pass so lightly over the affront to the River Mersey and the great works of Cammell Laird which the hon. Gentleman offered. The fact that we can disagree on the relative importance of these two parts of a great industry is itself evidence of the

significance of the industry to the nation as a whole.
I am very much interested in the amount of research and thought that the Admiralty is giving at present to the design of merchant ships, for there is no other single problem connected with the Merchant Navy which is so important. We must remember that the whole pattern of the inland transport system of the country has changed radically since the days when the old type of merchant ship was designed, built and launched. Improvements have been made and continue to be made in the ships which are built, but there is enormous room for improvement.
In the old days most of the merchandise going into or coming from the docks was conveyed by rail, and a small parcel at a time was handled from the container to the quay and from the quay to the ship's hold. All that has changed. The great bulk of the merchandise is now conveyed by road, and that simple fact has altered the whole pattern by which ships are loaded and unloaded at the quayside. The basic design of the vessel itself and the approaches to the holds of vessels have to be considered anew. Many new and adventurous ideas in cargo handling have been brought into operation at our quaysides and new designs of holds and hatches require to be brought into operation in our merchant ships.
I hope that the Admiralty will use some part of the comparatively small sum which it is asking the Committee to approve in order to keep its hands on the development of the design of merchant ships in these changed conditions.

Captain Robert Ryder: I strongly support the plea which has been made from both sides of the Committee that it is about time the Admiralty took an interest in the question of flag discrimination in the merchant fleet.
I wish, also, to refer to the question of the large graving docks which are needed for the new tankers. In recent years the size of tankers has increased enormously, and we are now producing very large vessels indeed. I should like to know whether the Admiralty has made a survey of our docking facilities to ascertain whether we can dry-dock these vessels within our own resources, and if so, what the result of the survey has been.


Is it not time the Admiralty gave some support and encouragement to various projects round the country for improving facilities which are, in effect, a very important strategic requirement?

Mr. Digby: I am very glad to have an opportunity to say a word on the very important subject of the merchant shipbuilding industry, of which the Admiralty is the sponsor. The sum of £21,000 may seem a very small one, but I can assure the Committee that the Admiralty's interest in the subject is very much greater than that. We take the greatest interest in the industry and keep in the closest touch with it, particularly on such questions as future orders.
I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that orders for our merchant shipbuilding industry are coming in rather better this year. There has been a distinct improvement. There had been some anxiety about the slackening off in orders, but orders are definitely coming in considerably better than they were, although we are still facing some fierce foreign competition and there has been a tendency overseas for cheap credit to be allowed to our competitors and even for subsidies of one kind or another to be granted. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the British shipbuilding industry, with its traditional skill, is still capable of holding its own in the world, given a fair chance. I should be the very last to start a dispute as to who was the best shipbuilder in the British Isles. I am glad to say that we have a very large number of very good shipbuilders.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to orders for the Soviet Union and asked whether there had been any inquiries in the Clyde area. I believe there were some inquiries, but they did not get to the stage of being orders, and, therefore, the question of licences did not arise.
Several hon. Members have spoken about repairs to naval vessels. I am rather doubtful whether I am in order here, but I should like to take the opportunity of saying that, when considering the refitting of naval vessels, we are giving the most careful thought to whether the work should go to the Clyde or the Mersey or wherever else it might be. We consult other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Labour, to ensure that the work goes where it is

most required. We do this because we are most anxious to keep the repair facilities, as well as the building facilities, of the country in a good state.
Two hon. Members have referred to the question of flag discrimination. I must reply that is not really within the responsibility of the Admiralty, and, therefore, that I cannot deal with it.
Reference has also been made to the speed and design of merchant ships. This is a matter which can only be influenced by the Admiralty. Obviously, it is primarily a matter for the owners who order the ships and pay for them. However, here again, we endeavour to keep intouch with the latest thought in the industry and to use our influence in the direction which we believe to be in the interests of the industry as a whole and in the interests of the country from all points of view, including defence.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) raised an extremely important point about large graving docks and pointed out, rightly, that, owing to the larger sizes of tankers which are now being constructed in the country, very much larger dry docks are necessary. The Admiralty has been into the question very carefully through the medium of a committee and has made an assessment of the position. It is most anxious to encourage ship repairers who do this kind of business to build more large dry docks. I am glad to say that a number have been constructed and more are projected. We are not, however, in a position, under this Vote or any other Vote, to give financial assistance; we are able to give encouragement of only a non-financial nature.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Orders of the Day — Army Estimates, 1955–56

VOTE 1. PAY, &c., OF THE ARMY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £119,620,000, be grunted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: There are only two points that I wish to raise on this Vote. One was referred to in the early hours of last Wednesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). One of the disadvantages of continuing our debates into the early hours of the morning is that sometimes these topics are not argued at sufficient length and, even if they are, are answered somewhat perfunctorily by the Minister.
The point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow concerned the status of the B.A.O.R. if and when the London and Paris Agreements are ratified. This is of considerable importance not only to the troops over there, but to a far wider public. My hon. Friend asked what would be the future of the British Army of the Rhine after the change of status in Germany. He said that the Army is now getting special facilities in the way of duty-free allowances and certain other privileges which he thought might be prejudiced when the status was changed.
In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State said that negotiations with the German Federal Republic were now taking place to protect these facilities as far as possible. He said that if it were not possible to get agreement with the German Government and the Army lost these privileges which it now enjoys, a local allowance to these troops would be granted instead. He went on to say that, in any case, the soldier would not suffer.
Except for those who have served in B.A.O.R., hon. Members are not fully aware of what these privileges consist. I venture to suggest that they are substantial to both officers and other ranks. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to tell the Committee what these privileges consist of, so that we can judge whether a local allowance will fully compensate these officers and other ranks if they should lose the

privileges on the ratification of these Agreements.
I have been looking at Command Paper 9368, which deals with certain matters which will arise when these Agreements are ratified. I find that arrangements have been made so that British troops shall not be unfavourably prejudiced by future taxation when the Agreements come into force. But I can find nothing in this document which deals with the question, for example, of N.A.A.F.I. concessional rates which are, of course, of considerable advantage to families living in B.A.O.R.
Another matter is concessional rates of travel on the German railways. I believe that that is mentioned somewhere in the document, but it would be as well to know to what that amounts and to what it is likely to amount, if anything, when the Agreements are ratified. I do not want to take up too much time in extending this debate, but this is a topic of considerable and continuing interest to that large number of troops whom we shall be bound, by the Agreements, to keep in Germany for forty-five or forty-six years. At present, as hon. Members may know, B.A.O.R. is considered to be a home station. If it is to become a foreign station, as I imagine it will be when these Agreements are ratified, I want to see what the exact position of our troops will be in relation to the perquisites or privileges which they now enjoy.
There is another matter which concerns overseas service. I think it can be related to Subhead K. It deals with the allowances paid to those serving overseas. I think that that Vote can be reduced. Nearly £10 million is now provided, and if the Secretary of State could provide for a reduction in the period of overseas service, that could be reduced. It will have two effects. It will, of course, reduce the overseas allowance, or the money provided for it, and it will produce another indirect benefit—which I am sure the Army will appreciate—that of lessening the period for which officers and men will have to serve in an overseas station.
If one compares the Army to the Navy, or to the Air Force, one finds that the other two Services are in a better position than is the Army. I presume, therefore, that they have to spend less money, because they are able to rotate postings for


their men much more speedily and extensively than is the Army.
In answer to a Question which I put to him on 8th February, the First Lord of the Admiralty told me that the maximum period of overseas service
Has been 2½ years, but this is being reduced on the majority of overseas stations as a result of the General Service Commission scheme …about two-thirds of the ships due to be manned under this scheme are already so manned; for these the maximum period of service abroad is 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; Vol. 312, c. 201–2.]
I do not anticipate that the Army can reduce its period of overseas service to so short a time as that, but I think that the period of three years might be reduced. Indeed, I did hear that there was a rumour—of course, the Army is always full of rumours—that the period was to be reduced to two-and-a-half years.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: If the period of service is reduced without the numbers abroad being reduced, all we do is speed up the number of shipments, but we do not lessen the overseas allowance.

Mr. Bellenger: That, of course, is the type of answer we expect the Minister to give. It is simply an arithmetical calculation that if the period of overseas service for families can be reduced, the Vote can be reduced. That is one of the reasons I am trying to make this case. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is a good case to make, even if I am not using the right argument. I advance this argument because I had to relate my case to this Vote.

Brigadier Peto: I take it that the right hon. Member is suggesting that men serving overseas in Germany should serve a shorter period and that he is not suggesting that units, regiments or battalions, should serve a shorter time abroad. If he is suggesting that individuals should be transferred home to other units, I should be opposed to that.

Mr. Bellenger: I was not relating my argument to Germany, but thinking more of the Far East. I believe that the period in Germany is less than three years, but that it is not on a par with Service in the Far East, because Germany is considered to be a home station.

What I should like to say, although I could not relate my remarks to this Vote, is that I think we should reduce some of the numbers serving overseas. But the reasons that I should advance in support of that argument would probably be out of order, at any rate in the discussion on this Vote. But I hope I have said enough to persuade the Committee that we should reduce that period of overseas service, particularly at what I would call the hotter stations, such as Singapore and Malaya, where conditions are very arduous, particularly for married families.
Those are the two main points which I wish to advance to the Committee. On the question of the pay of the Army generally, I think a considerable amount has been done in an attempt to bring the pay rates, particularly of junior officers, more into relation with what they might receive in civil life. However, pay is not the only consideration for the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to maintain and, indeed, to improve the forces at his disposal. Although pay is undoubtedly a very important matter, especially for junior officers about the time that they wish to marry, I think that even more could be done to improve their housing accommodation both at home and overseas. The right hon. Gentleman might achieve better results in recruiting if he paid attention to that, but, obviously, I cannot extend that argument.
I hope that because I have raised only two particular points, the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine that we have not a considerable amount to say today. Our time has been cut a little short because of the "naval engagement" which preceded our discussion, and I hope that all those who speak will make their points briefly and precisely as I have attempted to do. I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to them, and give us an extended reply such as we did not receive early last Wednesday morning from the Under-Secretary.

Mr. John Hall: I hope that I may follow the example of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and be as brief as he asked us to be.
I was interested in his point that we should endeavour to maintain for the forces in the B.A.O.R. some of the perquisites which they now enjoy. It is


one of the unfortunate things about the Army in general that perquisites which made life in the Army a little more enjoyable have been whittled away one by one. I think that that is a pity, and I support what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.
I wish to talk about the pay of the Army in general. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the pay of junior officers, which he thought insufficient to attract men from civil life and not comparable with what they could earn in a civilian occupation. I do not altogether agree about the pay of junior officers, but on pay as a whole I think that we have a long way to go before the Army is competitive with industry.
If we examine the tasks facing the Army in present conditions, we find that they have to accept separation inconveniences and problems regarding education which do not apply to the majority of civilians. One would think, therefore, that the pay would be higher than the rates offered to potential recruits; that they would be much better than could be obtained in civilian occupations.
In general, the rates of pay for other ranks are not bad, but they do not compare with the industrial average. They are still below that average and below the rates of pay which any competent man can obtain in the majority of industries. Although one may think that the pay for junior officers is reasonable, the higher one goes the worse it becomes. I am not sure that the emphasis on the rates of pay for junior officers is not encouraging into the Army men who take commissions because they are a little doubtful about their ability to earn good money in civilian life; while, at the same time, discouraging the type of person with confidence in his ability to make the Army a sound career, because, later in life, he may not be able to command a high salary. I think that we should examine the rates of pay again to see whether they need revision.
6.15 p.m.
Another good reason for this is that in the future we shall expect the Army to do rather more even than is done at present. In the debates on defence and on the Army Estimates we heard that the Army is to be stimulated; that the soldier will be expected to be much tougher; that he must learn to do with-

out the vast commissariat which previously followed him into battle; that he must get on to his own flat feet and do without vehicles; that he must live off the country. That is not learned just because a war starts. Soldiers must be trained and toughened in peace-time. We expect our Army to go through a much tougher kind of training and work a little harder in the future even than it does now. There will be a little less of the ordinary five-day week, and a little longer and much more intensive training programme will be carried out throughout the year.
In return, we should expect to pay them much higher rates. We must offer rates of pay which will attract people into the Army and, indeed, into the Services in general; rates which bear comparison with other industries. In return for improving conditions in the Army, we expect harder work and that soldiers should undergo a much tougher type of training; that they should, in fact, become a corps d'elite. If we associate high rates of pay with a type of training which will make a man proud to be known as a soldier, I think that to some extent we shall overcome the difficulties about recruiting which we have experienced in the past.
Most hon. Members would agree that we should be best served by a larger Regular Army and that, if we want a larger Regular Army, we must stimulate recruiting to a far greater extent than has been the case over many years, and much more than it is likely to be stimulated under present conditions so far as one can visualise. I know that pay is not the only reason why men do not join the Forces, but it could be one of the main reasons, and we could overcome that by giving better rates than those offered in industry.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine this matter again, to see whether the rates of pay in the Army can be increased and made more attractive than they are today.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I wish only to make two points briefly, and they both relate to the serious inability of the Secretary of State for War to admit when he has made a mistake.
My first point relates to the continued existence of the Home Guard. This was


produced with a great flourish earlier in the life of the Government as being a great and necessary safeguard in the new atomic age. It was supposed to contain 175,000 men. It was to be divided into various zones in the country, where in some parts we should have more men than in other parts. What happened was that in the parts of the country where the War Office wanted the most men it got the least, and in the parts where it wanted the least it got the most. Even the combined total of the two came to rather less than one-third of the figure for which the War Office had asked as an overall figure. Today we see in the Estimates that we are—

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. The hon. Member has raised an extremely important point relating to the Home Guard. Surely we are concerned with that under Vote 2 rather than Vote 1?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I was waiting to see the connection between the hon. Member's remarks and this Vote. It was not clear to me.

Mr. Wyatt: I thought that I was dealing with the question of pay for officers.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member is discussing the question of pay, that comes under Vote 1 and it is in order. But if he is merely discussing the question of recruitment to the Home Guard, that is out of order.

Mr. Wyatt: I am not discussing the question of recruiting. I was merely presenting, as a preliminary, a background to explain why it is completely unnecessary to give adjutant-quartermasters a salary. I thought it necessary to present that background, otherwise hon. Members might be under the impression that those officers had some work to do, and therefore that their pay was justified.
We are being asked to provide for a Home Guard of about 55,000 officers and men, some of whom are to be paid. The original intention was to have a force of about 175,000, distributed in an entirely different way.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is clearly out of order upon this Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Are not the officers who organise the Home Guard upon the permanent staff, and does not that fact make this discussion in order?

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be in order under Vote 2, but not under Vote 1.

Mr. Hughes: The word "officers" is mentioned in the first subhead.

The Deputy-Chairman: But that is not the point which the hon. Member was discussing. He was referring to the question of distribution.

Mr. Wyatt: Surely the question of pay is in order on Vote 1, which is headed "Pay, &c, of the Army." The specific point which I wish to raise concerns the pay of adjutant-quartermasters in the Home Guard. I do not see where else I can discuss that matter.

Mr. Wigg: Under Vote 2.

Mr. Wyatt: Why not under Vote 1?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will turn to page 28 of the Estimates he will see that the Home Guard comes under Vote 2.

Mr. Wyatt: Very well, Sir Rhys. I shall raise the matter when we come to Vote 2.

Mr. Wigg: I shall endeavour to step into the breach while my hon. Friend is working out his problem. I want the Secretary of State to explain one or two points. First, would he be kind enough to tell us why, during this debate, he has made no reference to the colonial army? He did not refer to it in his first Estimates speech, and he did little more than refer to it lightly when he wound up. He said that he would draw the attention of General Templer to the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). What is the significance of General Templer's new appointment? Is he going to reorganise and step up recruiting for the colonial forces, or is this just another piece of window-dressing?
I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to admit that it is window-dressing, but he might tell us whether General Templer is going to attempt to reorganise the colonial army. If so, will he tell the Committee whether he has gone back


upon the statements he made in his Estimates speech in 1952, when he told the House that 1,200 officers and N.C.O.s—just the men in respect of whom the greatest shortage exists—would be required to organise one West African division, and went on:
The bill for the buildings to house them in West Africa would be at least £13 million, and … would take between four and six years to complete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1034.]
Has anything happened to change that situation?
The right hon. Gentleman does not deceive anybody on this side of the Committee—and I say "deceive" in the most friendly way—but he may have led astray hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone and even innocents like the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), who thought that the right hon. Gentleman had waited for three years and, after pondering upon this problem of raising a considerable colonial force, had decided, upon the eve of the discussion of these Estimates, to send out General Templer. That may be so; I am prepared to believe anything, but I should like to have a definite assurance that such is the right hon. Gentleman's intention.
Perhaps he would also be kind enough to tell us what, if anything, the Government are going to do in respect of Colonial Paper No. 304 of 1954. A conference was held in Lagos in 1953, presided over by the Minister of State, and its proposals are very far-reaching. There was an admission that we should never be able to find sufficient officers ourselves, and that, whilst a few could be sent to Sandhurst in the short run, there would ultimately have to be a Royal Military Academy in West Africa. Even if such an institution were set up, however, it was considered that we should still not be able to find sufficient instructors. I thought that the suggestion that we should go to the Commonwealth countries and say, "Look, this is a good idea" was very constructive. It adds to the strength of the Commonwealth as a whole. Let us find the instructors from Commonwealth countries.
What is the policy of the Government in this connection? This conference took place in Lagos on 20th April, 1953. The White Paper appeared in July last year, and there has never been a word

since. There is little or nothing about colonial forces either in the Defence White Paper or the Secretary of State's Memorandum, and there was nothing in his speech about it. Now we have the appointment of General Templer. Can we be told something about the position?
I turn once more to the question of National Service. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present earlier, but if so he would have heard us congratulating the First Lord upon his inquiry into Regular recruiting and National Service. Although the real difference between the right hon. Gentleman and us is with regard to the steps to be taken, he cannot be satisfied with a situation which places a burden of two years' National Service permanently upon the backs of our young men. That does not lead to a strengthening of our military potential, and it is certainly a subtraction from our economic well-being.
If young men have to continue to do two years' military service it is clear that we shall not be able to get sufficient technologists and technicians to maintain our position in the forefront of the international industrial Powers. We cannot even be the foremost industrial country of Europe while we continue to have two years' military service. We cannot afford to be the only European country which is making any attempt at all to tackle the problem of raising and training military forces. It is impossible for us, with a population which is ageing and declining, to continue to carry this tremendous burden.
I agree that it may not be possible, overnight, to do much about cutting down the period. If I thought that the Government's policy was moving in a direction which would one day make a reduction possible I should be happy, but what worries me is the possibility that we shall have a period of two years in 1956 and so on for ever and ever and ever.
We wound up our discussion upon Vote A with a reference to this subject. We tried to get certain assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, but we could not put our finger upon the precise pledges that were given in this respect on behalf of the Conservative Party. Any hon. Member who looks at this problem will realise that it is for the good of the Army and the country that we should see


if we can make a cut in the period of National Service.
Defence is not a subject which captures the public imagination—or many votes—but it is important to educate public opinion upon the realities of the situation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is something of a backslider. He talked about pay. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends used to do when they were in opposition. They were mesmerised by the question of pay. Of course the Regular soldier wants to be adequately paid, but I agree with Field Marshal Montgomery, who said in a lecture at the Royal Institute that the answer to the problem would be found, not in pay, but in better conditions.
The hon. Member argued that if we want to increase recruiting for the Regular Army we must step up the pay. With great respect, that is nonsense. The best trained and hardest trained army was that of the Old Contemptibles in 1914, and they received Is. a day. To suggest that because training has to be tough and realistic we must step up the pay—upon the principle of payment by results—is quite clearly to suggest that we should impose a burden which, if we are ever to raise a Regular army of the size we require, would be economically intolerable.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: May I point out that pay is only one of the things, and that although it is true that the Old Contemptibles fought extremely well on a "Bob" a day, our problem is to attract more people into the present Army? We cannot attract more people into the Army unless we can produce more pay as well as better conditions.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member is again talking nonsense. He fails to understand the problem. If he will read the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he will find that he has done quite well. After three years, he has learned lesson No. 1, and that is that only a certain number of men will join the Army. It does not matter whether we increase the pay or cut it, the number remains fairly constant.
The problem is what happens when they go into the Army. What the right

hon. Gentleman wants to do is to persuade them to stay in the Army and to remain in the Army on long-service engagements. We shall not get them to do that merely by increasing the pay. The reason for the sensational rise in recruiting in the years 1951–52 was to be found in the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), when he was Minister of Defence, with the support of the party opposite, in introducing a differential.
It was the fact that when a young man joined as a National Service man he got 4s. a day, and when he joined for a three-years' engagement he got 7s. a day. He could see at the end of the week the difference between 4s. and 7s. He might not be a senior wrangler, but the difference of a guinea was something which he could appreciate, and that got the recruits.
I think that the Secretary of State ought to be seeking to sharpen the differential. We shall not get the Army that we want until we attend to the conditions. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can persuade the Treasury to increase the pay they will still not find the recruits that they want. This is essentially a long-term business. I do not agree that if the right hon. Gentleman had a change of heart overnight and suddenly became wholly sensible he would gain, in the course of one year or two years, any marked results in recruiting.
Before the war we had a class Army, and we still have a class Army. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when one is in the Army one can see this class difference and cannot avoid it. I read with great interest over the weekend a very interesting book, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman—"Called Up. "We find the young guardee going to Caterham, and as soon as he gets inside, he finds that all the boys from Eton go off to the Roberts block. They are all potential officers and are not allowed even to mix with the common herd in the canteen.
Even during their leisure time, when they go to buy a cup of tea and a "wad," to use an Army expression, they are not allowed to mix with the common herd. That kind of thing is stretching through the Army under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman from top to bottom. If I can persuade the Committee of the


seriousness of this position and the correctness of my analysis, we may next year get better results for the same amount of pay, or even during the present year.

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. At what point did this discussion get out of order, as I judged that it was doing by your movements in the Chair, Sir Rhys? Is it right that we should discuss on this Vote the "Bob" a day and the defects or advantages—I gather that they were the advantages—of a "bob" a day that my hon. Friend was putting forward? Or is it a question of what happens to the Eton boys? At what point is it possible to discuss these matters and not get out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know at what point it is possible to get out of order. What I am concerned with is that the discussion is kept in order.

Mr. Wigg: I would never get out of order.
My hon. Friend has been very naughty and has misrepresented me. He is very naughty indeed. I did not speak about the advantages of a shilling a day. I was most careful on that point. I am in favour of the highest possible rate of pay. I was saying that it is nonsense to relate a system of payment by results to conditions in the Army; we cannot do it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to disturb the flow of my argument. It looks as if he is a secret ally of the Secretary of State for War. I have suspected that for a long time.
The right hon. Gentleman, soon after he became Secretary of State for War, sought to make an announcement that N.C.Os. of the Household Brigade of Guards and junior N.C.Os. would be segregated. The right hon. Gentleman later said that it was a most unpleasant suggestion that he was in favour of segregation. I have never been able to understand why the party opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, with his own social background, should always believe in some divine inspiration relating to leadership.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): That is an old thing about segregation. It arose because, in the Brigade of Guards, a corporal is a lance-sergeant. What worried the hon. Gentleman was that corporals had a separate mess. All that happened was that,

being a lance-sergeant, the corporal went into the sergeants' mess.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am wondering how this can come under Vote 1.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to divine inspiration. Is divine inspiration in order on the Army Estimates?

Mr. Wigg: The pay of the corporal is borne on this Vote. I am not in any way confusing the rank of corporal with the appointment of lance-sergeant. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something quite different. One of the early decisions which he made in order to get value for money under this Vote was to segregate the junior ranks in the Brigade of Guards. That is the only part of the Army in which this segregation takes place. We have the admission, in a book published in the last few days, that this segregation continues.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how segregation comes under any one of these items.

Mr. Wigg: I am very sorry, Sir Rhys, but this is a technical subject, and is very difficult to follow. I appreciate your difficulty. I am dealing with the amount of pay under Vote 1 and the value which we get for it, and whether we can take steps to improve it during the coming year.
My case against the right hon. Gentleman is that consistently, during the last three years, his analysis was faulty. His analysis of the steps to be taken was wrong when he was in opposition. Hence, when he took over the job, he thought that all he had to do was to increase the pay. I regret to say that, although the right hon. Gentleman has himself become converted to what I regard as the correct doctrine, these old heresies still persist.
It is too much to hope that overnight hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept our point of view. I want to press on the Committee that the policy which we are urging is the same policy as the Labour Party has pressed for for a considerable time, namely, an all-party look at the working of the National Service Act, and its review at regular intervals, not to establish new facts, because I think that the facts are well known. We want hon.


Members from all sides to come to a common agreement about the situation which confronts any Service Minister. I stress that. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State happens to be a Conservative, a Labour Member, or even, if I may draw on my imagination, a Liberal. The problem is with us for a long time to come, and a solution has to be found in the interests of the Army and of the country.
I do not believe that, with the even balance of political forces in the country, one party is capable of taking the step needed to put this matter right. Once the problem is recognised, all sides can share in the responsibility for solving it. I have asked in the past for that to be done, and I am again pleading for it tonight. The right hon. Gentleman has not much longer to hold his present office because there will soon be a General Election. Nevertheless, I hope that at the eleventh hour he will be converted to this eminently sensible point of view.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Rhys? We have been talking about pay for adjutant-quartermasters of the Home Guard, which you have suggested is out of order under this Vote. Nevertheless, in the explanatory notes to Vote 1, under Subhead A, which relates to the pay of officers:
This subhead provides for expenditure on the pay of officers of the British Army …including non-Regular officers employed on full-time duties with the Territorial Army and Home Guard.
In spite of the fact that this appears under Vote 1 it seems that by your Ruling I shall only be able to discuss it on Vote 2.

The Deputy-Chairman: Vote 2 deals with Reserve Forces, the Territorial Army, the Home Guard and the Cadet Forces. The point to which the hon. Gentleman referred should be discussed under that Vote and not under Vote 1.

Brigadier Peto: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) very far, because we are skating on very thin ice on this subject, and I am not as clever as he is in doing it. The hon. Member is an extraordinary example of a man with a great deal of common sense but an almost vicious bias against the Brigade of Guards. That is a great pity.

He raised a point about pay which interests me because I made the point in a speech on Vote A. It is not a question of giving more pay to encourage men to join the Army in the ranks, so much as of conditions of service once they get there. On that point I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The other point I want to raise was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). He said—I repeat it from memory—that he was not satisfied about the pay of the junior officers as compared with what they could have earned in civil life. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) who followed him differed, taking the view that the pay of the junior officer was adequate while that of the senior officer was inadequate. That is my point of view, which I illustrated on Monday last when I gave instances comparing Service pay with wages at various stages of a young man's life up to the period when he had spent 25 years either in the Army or in business. It was quite apparent, from research which I undertook, that, after about 20 years' service, those who are in business begin to go right ahead out of all comparison with officers of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and above.
After 25 years' service, a lieutenant-colonel draws only £1,770 a year, with allowances, if he is married, whereas after 25 years, and having risen to the top of his department, a man in civil life would be earning between £2,000 and £5,000 a year.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: In referring to a lieutenant-colonel, my hon. and gallant Friend is not taking an officer who has reached the top of the tree and become a brigadier or a full colonel, but an officer who is equivalent to somebody who is fairly well down the administrative ladder.

Brigadier Peto: I do not think I am making an unfair comparison, but if my hon. Friend thinks that I have exaggerated no doubt he will be able to make that case, if he has an opportunity. There is a great discrepancy between the pay of a senior officer and the pay of a similar man in industry. There is less discrepancy in the pay of junior officers compared with the pay in a business, a store, or an industry.
Another point is whether Germany will be regarded in the near future as an overseas station or whether it will continue to be a home station. It makes a considerable difference to the allowances and other perquisites which can be obtained if it is regarded as an overseas station. Could my right hon. Friend give us a little enlightenment on that point?

Mr. Swingler: I have two simple propositions to put forward. The first would increase the size of the Vote and the second would diminish it. The first proposition is that pay should be generally increased.
I hope we shall not discuss Army pay as if it is only a question of baiting a trap. It would be deplorable to discuss the pay of men in the Army only as an attraction to more men to join. There is a little matter of justice to be considered. We are the people who must be the judges. The men in the Services are not in a position to make organised representations or to enter into collective bargaining with the Secretary of State for War.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here when we discussed pay on the Navy Estimates, but I hope he will admit that the pay code, or the multiplicity of pay codes, are out of date. Immediately after the war there was an attempt to relate Army pay to civil pay by making a rough calculation of what was given to men in the Services and taking the average wage in industry. Industrial wages have moved up considerably in the last few years, but Service pay has not. The majority of men in the Services, whether Regulars or conscripts, are still in the 1950 position. We all know that profits, salaries and wages, like prices, have moved up very sharply since 1950. This matter concerns also the wives and families of Service men. The marriage allowances are completely out of date.
The time has come for a general review and revision of the whole of the Army's pay code. I hope very much that the Minister will not talk as if the concessions given last year amounted to a new pay code. We welcome the concessions that were made, but, after all, they affect only a minority of officers and men. Those concessions should not be used as a means of denying justice to the majority of Regulars and the whole of the con-

scripts who are on rates of pay which are now out-dated.
I should very much like to see the Services get together and publish the facts about the present average wage in British industry, the average rewards in civil life, and their relation now to what the man in the Army is getting and the value of what he is getting. That should be produced in a comparative table to see how this matter has altered in the last five, six, or seven years, or at any rate since the time when the calculations were made about 1947 and 1948. I am sure that would make out an overwhelming case for an all-round increase of pay in the Army.
Obviously, this has a bearing on the question of voluntarily recruiting. I hope that it will not only be considered whether or not we should increase the pay of a few more men at the top. If we are to get more men to join the Army one of the most important things is that it should be felt that Parliament is doing justice to the men now in the Armed Forces. Certainly justice is not being done in this matter of pay.
To come to my second point, I believe it absolutely necessary, because of the cost of the whole of the apparatus and because of the nature and size of this Vote, to cut the period of conscription. That, of course, would enormously diminish the size of this Vote. As I have said before, I think this should be done for three reasons. The first is that the commitments of the Army are reduced. That is admitted and is stated in the Defence White Paper. The second is that the Secretary of State for War can claim that he has more volunteers. There are 100,000 more in the Services as a whole since the period of conscription was extended, in 1950, to two years.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond this particular Vote. Conscription or any other method of recruiting does not arise under this Vote.

Mr. Swingler: I hoped it might be possible to raise it here, because I do not see how it could come under any other Vote and it is in relation to pay.

The Deputy-Chairman: That might be true of other Votes, but I am not concerned with other Votes. I am concerned with this Vote.

Mr. Swingler: I am making the proposal in relation to the importance of diminishing the size of this Vote because a very substantial part of this Vote is concerned with the pay of conscripts. That arises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned, from the lengthy period of National Service. I would be very sad if you cut me short at this point, Sir Rhys, because I had hoped to quote from a speech of yours in 1950.

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever my speech about conscription may have been in 1950, it cannot be relevant to this Vote.

Mr. Swingler: If that is so, and you cannot allow me to continue to discuss that question, I can only finish by saying that the other night when we tried to raise the matter on Vote A we were caught out by the Secretary of State for War on the question of whether he was bound by a pledge to cut the period of conscription. I can only ask the Secretary of State to read in full the debate on 15th September, 1950, including your speech, Sir Rhys, and that of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, to put into perspective the very short quotation we made the other night. The right hon. Gentleman would then see that the leaders of both political parties in this country are pledged to a reduction in the period.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is still pursuing what is out of order on this Vote.

Mr. Swingler: I am very sorry, Sir Rhys, I merely say that I hope I have made out the case for my second proposal. In my opinion, we should diminish the size of this Vote by reducing the period of National Service, which, in any case, we are bound to do by pledges given in 1950.

Major Legge-Bourke: I have not intervened in the discussion of these Estimates before and I shall try to be as brief as I can. There has been a tendency, in anything connected with the War Office since the last war, to use it for the purpose of having fairly frequent changes. We remember very well that in the days when the party opposite were in power the War Office was becoming the receptacle for Ministerial waste. The

first thing I should like to do tonight is to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having survived as long as he has, and particularly to pay tribute to the way in which he introduced the Estimates last week. We were all deeply impressed. I think the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was unfair when he suggested that my right hon. Friend was no more interested in the colonial forces because he did not mention them. Considering what he did mention, that was a little unfair.
There is one particular officer who comes under this Vote to whom I would draw the attention of the Committee. He is the Director-General of the Territorial Army. I have mentioned that we have had frequent changes. This officer is a Regular officer and I think he is paid under this Vote. The War Office changes its immediate Ministerial representatives, but if those changes are outrivalled it is by the number of changes which have taken place in this particular appointment. It is very important that the Territorial Army senior Regular officer should be a person who is able to get fully versed in the great problems which confront the Territorial Army and that he should be paid commensurately with the job he has on hand.
If we look at the rates of pay in this Vote we find that the rate of pay of a major-general is £2,637. The rate of pay of a lieutenant-general is £3,185. If he is married he gets more, of course. I am wondering whether it is really fair to expect an officer to carry out a job of Director-General of the Territorial Army on the same pay that he would receive if he were serving in that rank in a job connected with the Regular Army.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not clear to me at the moment whether the hon. and gallant Member is dealing with the Territorial Army.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am dealing with a Regular officer who is appointed Director-General of the Territorial Army. He is paid under this Vote.

Mr. Head: Under Vote 3.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not clear whether it is under Vote 2, or Vote 3, but in any case it does not come under Vote 1.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope that I shall have another opportunity of raising that question.
I wish to say how very surprised and gratified I am to be in agreement with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in the suggestion he made that the rates of pay of the Regular Army compare unfavourably with rates of pay in civil life. I have always felt that the biggest obstacle here has been the Treasury. The comparison I would be far more anxious to make in this matter is between the rate of pay of those in the Armed Forces and the rate of pay in the Civil Service and the terms under which men serve.
7.0 p.m.
There is no question whatever that the security of the job in the Civil Service, especially for those who get to the higher grades, is superior to the security of an officer, senior non-commissioned officer or warrant officer in the Army. When it is decided that men are no longer vital to the continuing existence of the Army and it is suggested that they should go on to the Reserve, what they get on the Reserve compares somewhat unfavourably with the pension which a civil servant receives.
Although comparisons may be odious, I believe that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is right in saying that this is a problem we must solve. If we can find an all-party basis on which to do it and avoid playing party politics over the Army, so much the better. I remember very well that in the 1945–50 Parliament, hon. Members opposite said that the last thing they wanted to see was the Army being turned into what they described as a praetorian guard; I remember that expression being used.
The first object, surely, is to try to get an efficient Army. If, to get an efficient Army, and the biggest Regular element that we can, it is necessary to pay soldiers at a rate which, in the belief of some, the more pacifist-minded, might be considered the rate that we might pay to a British praetorian guard, I say, nevertheless, let us pay them that.
As my right hon. Friend said when introducing his Estimates, there is very little question of voting on the Army Estimates anyway. If there is anything, it is on the question of how long National Service continues; but that has already

been ruled out of order for discussion by the Chair, so I do not propose to elaborate on that. I think I am in order in saying that when the National Service Bill was introduced in the House, one of the things I said was that I disliked a conscript Army and I wished that we could make the Regular Army adequate.
Here we have the annual Vote for the payment of the Army, and it is the fairly formidable total of £119,620,000. It seems a great deal of money but it embraces, of course, marriage allowances, colonial service, and all the other things, and it shows what it costs to be a great country. Although I do not suppose that the nation's economy can stand it at present, if we want a really efficient, happy Regular Army, sufficient to provide the necessary defence of the ground which we have to defend and to keep the law and order which we have to maintain throughout the world, we must be prepared to pay for it. If, as a nation, we are not prepared to support it, the only alternative is that under which we are suffering at the moment.
I only hope that the hon. Member for Dudley is able to persuade all his hon. Friends to take the line on which he finished his speech this evening. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that over the years when we have both been in Parliament, a certain amount of party politics has been wrapped up with Army pay and with the conscription issue.

Mr. Wigg: It is all on one side.

Major Legge-Bourke: No, it is not by any means all on one side. I am quite-prepared to believe that neither of us has been perfect over this, because, I hope, we are both human and that automatically means that we are not perfect. Nevertheless, if the hon. Member is prepared to declare an armistice on this, so am I, and I hope it will not be necessary to have a mixed armistice commission to keep the peace. Let us hope that we can come to a sufficient agreement on the sort of way in which both of us were able to agree on the reform of the Army Act. That seems to me to be an admirable way of approaching this problem.
I am a little concerned, because the point that I particularly wished to raise occurs in a Vote which is not to be called.

Mr. Head: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend? I unwittingly misled your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. MacPherson, and my hon. and gallant Friend, because we understood that that matter was in Vote 3.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am not clear now which Vote it is in. I heard my right hon. Friend say distinctly that it would be in Vote 3—that is, the question of the Director-General of the Territorial Army. I was under the impression that the Director-General was paid under Vote 1, because he is a Regular officer.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The Ruling which has already been given is relevant now, and I repeat that Ruling.

Major Legge-Bourke: That Ruling was given on the advice tendered to the Chair by my right hon. Friend who said that it came under Vote 3. I am not clear, from my right hon. Friend's latest intervention, whether it is in Vote 2 or Vote 3.

The Temporary Chairman: The point simply is that as far as any evidence which I have is concerned, it is not on Vote 1. It is, therefore, out of order now.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: After a long period of almost Trappist silence by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), it is indeed refreshing, and quite like old times, to have the pleasure this year of hearing one of his interventions in the course of the Service Estimates debates. I believe that this is the hon. and gallant Member's maiden speech this year in the Service debates.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read the book which was recently published relating the experience of about 16 young men who were called up for National Service. The point that comes to the forefront in that book is the unsatisfactory relationship between officers and men. That leads me to ask whether we are getting the right type of junior officers, and whether we are paying them the right amount for their services.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the last phrase mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member will provide the text of what he says rather than what preceded it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: A very competent officer—namely, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck—stated as his opinion that the contacts between officers and men in the Army at the present time, particularly between junior officers and men, were not at all satisfactory. In other words, a man doing his National Service, apparently, did not even know the name of his officer, or saw him so rarely—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is not keeping within order on this Vote. He must confine himself a little more strictly to the actual Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I content myself by saying that we do not seem to be getting a proper return from this expenditure in relation to the contact that ought to exist between the junior officer and the National Service man, for whom we are providing money in this Vote.
However, I shall not pursue that point. To put the matter beyond any doubt, I want to refer to Section L, "Miscellaneous allowances," on page 22 of the Estimates, which is definitely within Vote 1, because at the top of the page there appear the words:
Vote 1.—Pay, &amp;c, of the Army.
In those circumstances, if I say a few words about the outfit allowance, I shall probably be dealing with a matter which is contained within the Vote that we are now discussing.
The Secretary of State or his Department announced a little while ago that mess dress was being reintroduced into the Army. The view then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman was that although mess dress was being reintroduced it would be quite optional for junior officers. Evidence which I have seems to indicate that this reintroduction of mess dress is not anything like as optional as we were led to believe it would be. I am not suggesting that there is anything in the nature of compulsion in the matter by senior regimental officers, but—

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is this argument in order on this Vote? Officers buy their own mess dress.

The Temporary Chairman: I was a little apprehensive about where the hon. and gallant Member's remarks were leading, but I do not think he has yet strayed far out of order.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: But he is talking about mess dress.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In this Vote provision is being made for outfit allowance to the extent of £830,000. I was about to suggest that the so-called optional reintroduction of mess dress makes this Estimate of £830,000 quite inadequate.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member again, but the reference in this Vote is to the initial allowance, and I understand that mess dress is not included. Unless the hon. and gallant Member wishes to argue that it ought to be included, I do not think his remarks can be in order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am going to try to argue that provision should be made for mess dress.
Provision is made in the Navy, for example, if I may quote that analogy, for mess dress. I suggest a similar provision ought to be made for Army officers to that made for naval officers. Unfortunately, mess dress is already beginning to be regarded as indispensable. A junior officer joining a regiment naturally feels a little out of place if some function takes place in the mess and if all the officers are in mess dress and he is—

Brigadier Peto: In the mess.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: —the only one who is not, because the allowance with which he is provided does not enable him to buy mess dress.
I believe that a mess dress costs about £50, and it is impossible for a junior officer to find that amount. Although it is not compulsory to wear it, it must be a considerable embarrassment to a junior officer to join a regiment for the first time and to find all the other officers in the mess have mess dress and he has not. Naturally, he feels he too ought to have it.
I saw in the "Daily Telegraph" a report to the effect that at the St. David's guest night of the 1st Battalion the Welch Fusiliers all 34 officers present were in mess kit. That seems to indicate that the officers concerned, even if they were junior officers, were able to find the money for the mess dress out of their own pockets, but to have to buy mess dress out of their own pockets is a

handicap which should not be imposed upon junior officers.

Mr. John Hall: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether the mess dress to which he is referring was paid for by the officers concerned? Or was it obtained in some other way?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that to go into details of that sort would be out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am glad to avail myself of the protection that you, Mr. MacPherson, have afforded me, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I ignore his intervention.
However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say a word or two on the subject, for the evidence seems to suggest that at present junior officers joining a unit for the first time find the question of mess dress a source of embarrassment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not interested in mess dress. I am interested only in the mess. I was rather upset when the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) cast aspersions on the Treasury. He seemed to suggest that the Treasury was the villain of the piece in connection with these Estimates, that the Treasury was restricting expenditure on officers' pay and all the pay items outlined in this Vote.
I see no Minister from the Treasury sitting on the Treasury Bench, and there seems to be no Treasury point of view expressed in this debate—except my own. I want to express what I think is the Treasury point of view, because the Treasury has to find the money. If the Treasury were to agree to all the demands by the Service Ministers this country would go bankrupt.
Therefore, we should not be thinking of the point of view of the Service Ministers only, nor should we be thinking only of the reminiscences of the old soldiers. We should be thinking of what is contained in this Vote. I believe that the Treasury, far from having restricted expenditure, has been far too generous to the War Office. If I had been at the Treasury I should have cut these Estimates, including these items of pay, very drastically, and that is exactly what we must do if this country is to be solvent.
It is all very well the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to demand much higher rates of pay which, according to these Estimates, total no less than £120 million. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, or even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he would say that he had been far too generous in allowing this sum for the Army at the present time. There is room for a considerable reduction of these Estimates.
I am not biased against the Army like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely said that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was biased against the Brigade of Guards. I have no bias against the Brigade of Guards. My bias, if I have any, is rather against the 3rd Welch. [Laughter.] If hon. Members knew of some of my experiences with the 3rd Welch they would understand.
I want the Committee to fulfil its function as the critic of expenditure, and, far from agreeing to this £119 million, to reduce it drastically. I could suggest drastic reductions in all these items in Vote 1, but the one I would specially reduce is the local overseas allowance. I believe that an overseas allowance amounting to £9½ million is far too high and that it should be drastically reduced. By that I mean we could reduce the overseas allowance by reducing the number of men overseas.
That item of £9½ million would be whittled away to almost nothing if there were a sensible point of view at both the Treasury and the War Office. If we were to bring those men home from overseas there would not be so much money expended on the overseas allowance. My idea is that a very large number of those soldiers could be brought home to form the strategic reserve in this country in readiness for demobilisation.
We have our commitments, it is true. I do not blame the Secretary of State for War for this huge sum, except in so far as it concerns the Army Estimates. He has to carry out the policy of the Government. By reducing our commitments we surely could reduce—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must watch how he is going.

I am afraid that he is getting very nearly out of order.

Mr. Hughes: With due respect, Mr. MacPherson, I was suggesting that the sum of £9,500,000 was rather high.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not out of order, but a discussion of commitments is not in order in debating this matter.

Mr. Hughes: I will leave the question of commitments and say that this item of £9,500,000 could be considerably reduced if the soldiers were at home.
Let us take, for example, the expenditure that must necessarily occur if these troops remain in a place like Cyprus. If they were not there, the total of overseas allowances would be less. Therefore, my argument is that these troops should be brought home from Cyprus. That is a financial argument. I am not talking about policy or about commitments. All I am talking about is the pay involved in keeping the troops in Cyprus. I was looking forward optimistically this yearto a considerable reduction in the Army Estimates. I thought that they would come down by at least £50 million.

Mr. Head: They have come down by £70 million.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State has not quite grasped my point. I was referring to the pay. It would be quite out of order to follow the right hon. Gentleman's remark, because a reduction occurred in respect of equipment, and that is included in the £70 million. But do not let me get into an argument with the Secretary of State. I will say that I reasonably expected that the Army Estimates could be reduced by £100 million, and that could be done by transferring soldiers to places where they need not be paid an overseas allowance.
The point to which I was coming was that the basis for my optimistic belief that the Estimates would be drastically reduced was the expectation that the soldiers would be brought home from Suez. I was an enthusiastic supporter of a reduction in the military expenditure at Suez. I went into the Government Lobby to support the Government against the mutiny of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and others. I helped to suppress the mutiny. I expected that, as a result of my helping the Government


on that occasion and of the Suez commitment being reduced, I should be rewarded by a very drastic reduction in Vote 1 this year.
Instead of reducing the overseas allowance by bringing the soldiers home to Aldershot, to Edinburgh, or elsewhere, the Government took the soldiers to Cyprus. The result is that we shall have this commitment still existing whereas there could have been a substantial reduction. If the Secretary of State for War wishes to win his battles with the Treasury and bring next year's Vote 1 down by a considerable amount—by sufficient to satisfy me—all he has to do is to look at the item in respect of overseas allowances, look carefully at the places where soldiers are stationed overseas, and then reduce the overseas allowances. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley understands that point perfectly.
For example, how much of this £9,500,000 is estimated to be in respect of Germany? I do not see what our soldiers are going to do in Germany.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss each individual place separately. This is a question of pay generally, and as long as he keeps to that, he is in order. When he discusses Germany, Cyprus and so on he is getting out of order.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged, Mr. MacPherson, for your Ruling and, of course, will leave that argument.

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Surely it is legitimate to subdivide this matter to some extent. Colonial troops, Commonwealth troops and so on are referred to, and they are not all stationed overseas in the same place.

The Temporary Chairman: It is legitimate to subdivide the matter to some extent, but it is difficult to follow this argument and decide what is in order and what is not. To mention Germany is definitely out of order, because the question of troops there does not involve overseas allowances.

Mr. Bellenger: Although I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), nevertheless we have been told by the Secretary of State for War that

a local overseas allowance may be paid to our troops serving in B.A.O.R. if certain treaties come into force. I suggest, therefore, that so long as my hon. Friend relates himself to that he will be in order.

The Temporary Chairman: So long as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) relates his argument to pay generally, he is in order, but it is difficult sometimes to distinguish whether he is in order or not.

Mr. Wigg: I suggest that if my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) follows the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), he will scarcely be in order, because if it becomes necessary to give an overseas allowance to our troops in Germany surely it will be subject to a Supplementary Estimate. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he would be far wiser to confine himself to Vote 1, Subhead E which deals with colonial troops. He will then be able to make his case without going outside the Vote.

The Temporary Chairman: To discuss Germany, in any case, under this Vote would be out of order.

Mr. Hughes: I will make a strategic retreat and take up a stronger position in the rear.
I am not yet driven back to Vote 1, Subhead E, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley drew my attention, but I suggest that the total of Vote 1, amounting to nearly £120 million, includes the pay of officers and soldiers in Germany. I leave the question of overseas allowances. I understand I am completely out of order on that point.
This sum of nearly £120 million for which we are budgeting includes the pay of soldiers in Germany, and, therefore, I want to argue that this sum could be substantially reduced if we brought the soldiers home from Germany and established them here as a strategic Reserve. I fail to see in any case that they are really defending this country in Germany.
I do not quite understand what they will be paid for in Germany, because at this time last year it was assumed that they would be paid for being prepared to fight the Russians. This year it is assumed that they will be in Germany to reassure the French against the Germans.


I suggest, therefore, that if only the Treasury lived up to its responsibilities, stood firm, and rejected all these arguments that come from the Service Departments, it could substantially reduce Vote 1. I do not attack the Army Estimates or consider them from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. He is a pure opportunist. He has no strategic principles at all.
I approach this matter, not from the point of view of a military expert who wants to see a bigger Army—I want to see a smaller Army. I want to see it reduced to a sort of police force, so I reject entirely the approach to this matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I say that that is not the way in which we should approach these Estimates. We should approach them from the point of view of the taxpayer who has to find the money.
7.30 p.m.
This country is in such a serious financial and economic plight at present, largely due to considerations which it would be out of order altogether to discuss on this Vote, that I believe that the House of Commons should exercise its ancient prerogatives and be vigilant and critical of these huge Estimates. I have pointed out before that the struggle over these Army Estimates has been one of the crucial issues of politics. I remember reading the biography of the father of the Prime Minister, written by the Prime Minister, and we find that the same controversy was raging at that time. The Army was wanting too much and the Treasury was saying, "Oh no, these Estimates are far too high."

The Temporary Chairman: We are still on Vote 1, and the hon. Member must not stray wide of the Vote and make a speech, embracing other matters.

Mr. Hughes: I am going to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
I believe in criticising Vote 1 from the point of view of the taxpayers and not from the point of view of the strategist, professional or amateur. This Vote should be examined carefully and with the utmost vigilance when it comes before us, as it does now, in Committee.

Mr. James Simmons: I was rather surprised to hear the speech

of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), because that speech reeked of snobbery. It was all about mess dress and comes under this Vote under the heading of "Miscellaneous Allowances." Cannot the officers eat their soup without having a mess dress? Do they have mess dress in the trenches? Do the fighting soldiers have mess dress? Why this class distinction from this side of the Committee? I am ashamed, aggrieved and disturbed that an hon. and gallant Member of this side of the Committee should so nakedly stand for snobbery.

Major Legge-Bourke: If I may follow that argument, the temperature of this Chamber is kept the same as that of a warm spring day, so why is the hon. Gentleman not wearing a linen suit?

Mr. Simmons: A linen suit would make me even more conspicuous than I am now, and I have no desire for such notoriety. There are hon. Members who rush to see reporters because they like to see their own names in the headlines. I do not want that; I am more modest. But I am concerned about this spirit of snobbery. In the old days the ordinary soldier had two uniforms. He had a red uniform and a khaki uniform. When he went out "square bashing" the girls ran after the uniform.

The Temporary Chairman: That is hardly in order on this Vote. I think that the hon. Member should return to what we are discussing.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, this comes under the heading of "Marriage Allowance, &c., of Officers," and my hon. Friend is therefore in order.

Mr. Simmons: I will leave "square bashing" and say that when the Army was doing is job khaki was good enough for it. What my hon. and gallant Friend is saying, in effect, is that 2 an ordinary working class chap attains the rank of second lieutenant he will feel out of place in the mess because other officers are likely to look down upon him if he cannot afford the mess clothes. Surely the way to deal with that is not mess dress for all, but mess dress for none.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not pursue this matter, because this discussion is out of order.

Mr. Simmons: Surely it comes under the "Outfit Allowance" expenditure.

Brigadier Peto: It does not come under "Outfit Allowance."

Mr. Simmons: I take it that mess dress is part of an outfit, and, therefore, this comes under the "Outfit Allowance" expenditure.

The Temporary Chairman: No.

Mr. Simmons: Then where does it come?

The Temporary Chairman: It does not seem to me that it arises anywhere here. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the Vote we are on and relate his observations to that Vote.

Mr. Simmons: I come now to "Married allowance &c. of Officers" and "Married allowance &c. of Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men." I am amazed to see that 26,900 officers get £6,800,000 in marriage allowances but 315,100 other ranks get only £8,750,000. Is this another piece of class distinction? Can the Secretary of State tell us how these figures are made up, and why such a comparatively small number of officers should get so much and yet so many men of other ranks get less per head? Either one of two things must be true. Either the officers are very badly overpaid or the other ranks are very badly underpaid in respect of marriage allowances.
There is one other point which I want to query and that deals with National Service grants. This, I think, is of the utmost importance. As I have gone about my constituency I have had complaints that these grants are on a very narrow and meagre kind of scale. There is, of course, a means test applying to them and it is drawn very tight. I want some explanation of this. In page 20 we find a reference to the National Service grants and then, in page 207, we see a reference to marriage allowances for National Service men. In what circumstances does a National Service man get a marriage allowance? I see that those below the

rank of sergeant get £1 15s. a week. Is that universally applied to all National Service men? My impression is that it is not, and if it is not then it is just a piece of window dressing.
I hope that the Secretary of State will let us have some information on the marriage allowance to National Service men, and will tell us whether all married National Service men get a weekly allowance at the rate of £1 15s. a week. If not all, can he tell us who, and if only some, why are the others excluded? Would he also look once more—I think I raised this question on the last occasion when these Estimates were under discussion in Committee—at the possibility of there being a more generous interpretation of the phrase "National Service grants"? We take these young men away from their newly-married wives, after they have taken on obligations of house purchase and hire purchase perhaps, or we take them away from their parents. Let us at least be generous to those whom these men leave behind.

Mr. Fernyhough: I began to be somewhat concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that these Estimates were too high and that he wanted them reduced. It appeared to me that my hon. Friend was taking a line which he does not usually follow, and that what he was seeking to do was to reduce the pay of the men concerned, because he did not mention that he wanted the numbers reduced.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I said that I wanted these men brought home to form part of a strategic reserve with a view to their being demobilised.

Mr. Fernyhough: Reference was made to the overseas allowance, which is a small amount in the total we are discussing. The claims of officers for increased pay have been put forward admirably by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) —

Mr. John Hall: I was not only advancing the claim of the officers, but also that of all ranks.

Mr. Fernyhough: In that case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I want the Secretary of State for War to appreciate that many of the young men now


being called up for National Service are at present working in industry. Today, they are enjoying relatively high wages and, through working in industry, have become accustomed to a certain standard. The first thing that happens to them on entering the Service is that they suffer a considerable reduction in their standard of living. Boys of 18, who are doing a reasonable job in industry, are now earning from £4 to £6 a week, but when they enter the Service they automatically find themselves reduced to 28s. a week.
At the same time, their commitments are increased because it seems to be the policy of the Army to send them as far away from home as possible. Therefore, many of the National Service men are spending nine-tenths of their 28s. a week in trying to get home when they get a weekend pass. The War Office has a responsibility either to increase their pay or, alternatively, to give them a free warrant so that they can get home when they get a weekend pass.
I endorse what was said about National Service grants by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons). There are many cases of real hardship and it is not good enough to limit the maximum to £3. Some of these boys, by working overtime and being on piece work, are able to earn £6, £7 and £8 a week. If such a boy has a widowed mother or a parent in poor financial circumstances, when he is called up the parent is denied the financial help previously given by the son. We here are responsible for imposing these hardships upon such homes by virtue of National Service and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether it is not possible to increase the £3 maximum and so relieve much of the hardship which that causes at present.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Head: We have had a long and varied debate on this Vote, and, although the Committee will wish me to sum it up, I shall not do so at great length because we have a mutual undertaking with the Royal Air Force, and we must give the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) time to change his uniform.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked me in general terms whether, after ratification, Germany would remain a good station for

British soldiers as regards their various concessions. I can tell him that it is the policy of myself, of the War Office—and we have an agreement on this policy with the Minister of Defence—that, since as far as we know Germany will remain a station for British troops for a considerable time, it should remain a good station. Goodness knows, the British Army has enough difficult and unattractive stations today and it is our policy to keep Germany a good station.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman would like a categorical assurance about what we shall do if such and such happens or if such and such fails or if we lose such and such as a result of the negotiations preceding ratification. I think he will appreciate, however, that I cannot tell him exactly what we should do, if, after the final negotiations with the Germans, certain taxes or concessions or protocols did not go our way. All I can tell him is that, so long as I am at the War Office, our aim is to see that the general privileges and conditions in Germany remain at a high level, and that Germany remains a good station. At this stage I do not think anybody could go much further.
Furthermore, I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War at the conclusion of the debate on the Army Estimates, namely, that so far as the cost of living is concerned—that is to say, if prices rise, as they may because of the labour overheads for N.A.A.F.I.—the difference will be made good by means of L.O.A., as is done in other overseas stations when the cost of living goes up.

Mr. Wigg: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is underlining and reaffirming the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary of State for War when I asked him:
The hon. Gentleman appears to have made an important statement. Will he be good enough to confirm that he is giving a firm undertaking on behalf of the Government that no soldier, or soldier's family will be worse off after Britain becomes responsible for the cost of the occupation of Germany?
The Under-Secretary of State said:
There will be compensation for any losses incurred.
I then further asked:
That applies to the soldier and his family? They will get a personal service allowance, or something like that?


The Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to say:
They will get the overseas allowance, or the present arrangement will continue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1954; Vol. 538, c. 402.]

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has great skill in asking tricky questions. He knows that there are certain "perks" which do not come within the scope of local overseas allowance. What my hon. Friend meant was that, within the ambit and scope of local overseas allowance, the increase in prices will be made good. That does not include certain things, however. For instance, at the moment a horse can travel in Germany a little cheaper than is normally the case. That does not come within the local overseas allowance.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman going back on the undertaking of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman often accuses other hon. Members of misrepresenting him, and he knows quite well what I am saying. I am saying that certain things will not be made good by local overseas allowance. As for the rest, nobody is more anxious than we are in the War Office to keep up a good station, and that is our aim in the negotiations which are still going on.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw also asked whether we could not economise in the amount of L.O.A. by making changes of station more frequent. I must confess that I am rather on the side of the hon. Member opposite who intervened, because, although we might change the stations more frequently, our commitments force us to retain the same number of men overseas, and we should then be doing it more extravagantly.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I was aiming at, which was to reduce the period of service of officers and men overseas from the present two or three years to something less.

Mr. Head: I now see the right hon. Gentleman's aim. He was using the L.O.A. to keep in order.
The real point is that the Army—rightly, I think—late in 1951 or early in 1952 went over to unit moves. Instead of a unit staying in one place a long time and the men going backwards and

forwards, the whole unit moves. That was a considerable concession by the Treasury, and it meant that the men stayed together. However, one cannot move a unit overseas every two or three years, and so it means that the unit remains in one place but the men come and go. When due for "Python," the men might come back to England away from their unit. They might then come out of the Black Watch and go into the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—and would probably be very angry indeed about it. We should then have a big increase in cross-posting.
The right hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that, until recently, 80 per cent. of the fighting units have been overseas. With that situation we cannot have a tour comparable to that of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, who have a far lower percentage of their forces overseas at the present time, and have a much more balanced layout geographically. I am sure that to do at the moment what has been suggested would result in a great increase in cross-posting, which everyone wishes to avoid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) talked about pay. It is always difficult for anyone in my position to give any very categorical or far-reaching views about pay. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw will agree with me in that respect. All I can say is that I am only too well aware of the sort of points which have been raised, not only by my hon. Friend but by many other hon. Members about pay. This is something about which it really is true to use a very hackneyed phrase and say, "It is under constant review."
It is the job of all three Services to ensure that pay remains in line, as far as possible, with pay in civilian life, and it is also of great importance to ensure that the way in which we place the pay achieves the object that we require of it. The hon. Member for Dudley said that he would increase the differential. The last pay adjustments, which amounted to about £6 million for the Army—about 5 per cent. of the total—were calculated with a view to rewarding technical skill and similar qualifications, and the whole emphasis was on the Regular, and not on a general rise or on the National Service men.
I believe that to be the right trend, and I believe that is the way the future trend should go. I can assure hon. Members that I well appreciate these points. This is a matter to which we must pay very close attention.
Some hon. Gentlemen said very strongly "That is not all." If they had listened to what I said in the debate on the Estimates—having said it once, I do not propose to repeat it now, for that would only bore the Committee—they would have realised that there are a very large number of factors with which we are trying to compete to the best of our ability, such as barracks, overseas service, overseas separation and so forth.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) started off very boldly. His first accusation was that the trouble with me was that I would not admit that I was wrong. It took him about four minutes to admit that he was out of order.

Mr. Wyatt: I was not.

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman was not out of order, I do not know why he did not complete his speech.
The hon. Member for Dudley accused me, which is not an unusual trait of his, of wilfully or purposely omitting any mention of the colonial forces in my speech on the Estimates. At the start of that speech I said that I had a great deal to say and that I should not be able to cover everything—I do not believe the hon. Gentleman could have done so unless he had gone on for a couple of hours—but that I would try to answer any points which were raised during the debate. As a matter of fact, that subject was not raised very strongly in the debate. I do not think that any hon. Member made a speech particularly on the colonial forces.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) made such a speech, and the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) treated the news that General Templer was going out to the Colonies as if he were Moses coming down from Sinai.

Mr. Head: That is true; I remember the speech.
With regard to General Templer's appointment, and colonial forces in

general, I would say that there has been a great deal of progress in educating officers. That is one of the points that the hon. Member for Dudley mentioned. I wish he could see the very large college in Malaya for young Malayan officers, which is now running. I saw it. It is a very inspiring sight indeed. It has made a lot of progress, but that sort of thing takes time. This is an important matter. It is not just a matter of educating young natives to be officers; it is in the period when they receive a general education that they are in a position to start being educated as officers. It is a long cycle.
With regard to General Templer's appointment, as the result of the colonial policy which has been pursued since the war a great many changes have come and are coming with regard to the relative position of the various Colonial Territories and ourselves. That in itself raises many problems of administration and settlement of responsibility with regard to various aspects of colonial forces. General Templer, who has had a great deal of experience and has a great ability for getting things done and understanding problems, is to carry out a special investigation into all this.
The hon. Member for Dudley, besides mentioning pay—I think that in my general remarks I have already dealt with most of the points that he raised—spoke of the policy outlined in the book to which he referred. Oddly enough, when I read the "Sunday Times" on Sunday and saw the review of the book, I said to myself, "I bet the hon. Member for Dudley has probably read it already."

Mr. Wigg: I am delighted to find myself on the right hon. Gentleman's conscience, even on a Sunday.

Mr. Head: It was when I saw the heading, which referred to the fact that it was a critical book and a matter of great interest in relation to National Service, that the hon. Gentleman came into my mind.

Mr. Ede: Who is the bookmaker who does business on Sunday?

Mr. Head: I think that that subject would be a little away from the Vote.
The hon. Gentleman made some rather unjustified remarks about all the boys


from Eton being put into a certain part of the Guards Depot. It is my experience that a lot of the boys from Eton are failed at the W.O.S.B. Surprisingly, quite a number of my old school friends find their sons failed by the W.O.S.B. The accusation that just because someone was at Eton, or his father was a field marshal, he gets past the W.O.S.B. is untrue. It is not fair to suggest that just because men were at a certain school they are segregated—

Mr. Wigg: The book received a great deal of publicity—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman himself is getting rather wide of the Vote.

Mr. Head: I am extremely sorry, Mr. MacPherson. I am afraid that I have been led astray by the hon. Member for Dudley.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested that we should cut the pay—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not mean cutting the individual soldier's pay, but cutting the total amount of the pay by reducing the number of people in the Army.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Head: What the hon. Gentleman really did was to make a very original, serpentine and indirect approach through Vote 1 into foreign affairs, and the extent to which he succeeded was limited. I do not think I should be allowed to follow him into discussing the necessity of having troops in Cyprus. It would be quite incorrect to do so at this time.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) asked about the marriage allowance. He did a bit of arithmetic showing there was so much for officers and so much for men. That 315,000 is the total number of other ranks in Europe. It does not represent the number of married other ranks in the Army. If it did, it is quite true that the amount for marriage allowances would be very low indeed. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at page 193, Appendix I, he will see the rates for officers, and further on in that Appendix he will find the rates for other ranks. I do not think that he will find his accusation is substantiated by those tables. Nor will he find the discrepancy which he suggested.
He also asked about National Service grants. I have taken note of what he and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said about that subject. I am not trying to escape responsibility, but it is not entirely in my hands. It is a matter over which the Minister of Pensions has more control than I have. But I will have a further look at the rates and study the remarks of hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Simmons: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the point about the number of National Service men who get the marriage allowance of £1 15s. a week, could I ask him what is the difference between that and the National Service grant?

Mr. Head: I think that the hon. Member's point was whether National Service men got the marriage allowance. So far as I know—I should like to make a reservation, because I will check this later—they all get it regardless of age. I do not think that there is any bar whatsoever, and I think that I am right in saying that if a man joins with a wife, he starts off with a marriage allowance on the first day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Join with a wife?"] It is perfectly possible to join with a wife, so far as I know. Theoretically it is perfectly possible.

Mr. William Keenan: Is it true that the wife of a National Service soldier gets less than the wife of a Regular soldier in the same way that the National Service man receives less than the Regular soldier? Is the Secretary of State prepared to give consideration to that complaint?

Mr. Head: They do get less, but that differential has been recognised by this and by the previous Government. It is a very important aspect of the three Services. If Regulars and National Service men receive equal pay, that would cost a great deal of money and would probably have the tendency to decrease the size of the Regular content of all three Services. This country is immensely more generous in this respect than the majority of other countries that have National Service. I think that I am right in saying that in Turkey they get the equivalent of 4d. or 5d. a month.
The hon. Member for Jarrow said that men very often have a long way to travel, I think he was referring to men in this country. To a certain extent they are


fortunate to be in this country, and they are given two free travel warrants a year. My experience is that some men are a very long way from home, but it is remarkable how Service men continue to travel without it costing them an awful lot of money.
The Regular gets three free travel warrants a year as opposed to the two that the National Service man gets. I believe that two free travel warrants a year and the way men manage to get about show that they are not badly off, and if I had more money available, I should be inclined to see if we could not use it to get men serving overseas home perhaps once a year rather than to give more free travel warrants.
That brings me to the end—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—

Mr. Head: I must have missed a sheet of my notes. The hon. Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is becoming the Beau Brummel of the Socialist Party. I was interested in his speech, which I thought was mainly concerned with the question of mess kit.
This is a vexed question, and it is a matter on which there is a good deal of difference of opinion. I repeat what I said when it was announced—we intend to make the wearing of mess kit voluntary. I know that hon. Members will say that is rubbish, because if a CO. scowls at one for not having it, one will get it. But we have sent out a letter which makes it abundantly clear that the wearing of mess kit is entirely voluntary. I have found a lot of officers dining in khaki and not in blue. I do not think that it will become compulsory.
I should like to remind hon. Members that there is an astonishing lot of mess kit. We had an Army Council dinner the other day attended by some very distinguished officers, and some of the mess kits were of a tremendous age, but they looked all right. There were a few tight buttons, but they all had a very good appearance. Retired officers have been asked for mess kits for regimental pools. I expect that Mr. Moss will do a certain amount of trade. We have abolished some of the expensive embellishments. The price is not £50, but £35.

There are a few regiments, like the Highlanders, where they have a mess kilt with an awful lot of stuff in it. It is extremely expensive, I am sorry to say, but we are trying to cut it down.
I think I had better leave the matter of mess kit and I should say to the Committee that although I should be ready to continue the argument until 10 o'clock, we have an understanding, we have a lot more Votes to discuss, and we have already taken 10 minutes more than the time allowed for this one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £119,620,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY, HOME GUARD AND CADET FORCES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 310,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 300,000 other ranks). Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 324,400, all ranks). Home Guard (to a number not exceeding 55,000, all ranks). Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall be extremely brief and, I trust, completely in order. We are being asked under this Vote for money for the Reserve Forces, including the Territorial Army. In page 32 of the Estimates something is said about the organisation and the respective functions of the Territorial Army. We are told that it may provide a field force and that it is to support the Civil Defence organisation. Does this mean—particularly in view of what was said in the Memorandum on the Estimates—that an increasing number of men in the Territorial Army is to be trained to take part in Civil Defence and in that Governmental and, indeed, semi-political work which will be bound up with Civil Defence if this country should ever be subjected to attack by the worst of modern weapons?
Are we to see an increasing number of the Territorial Army engaged in training of that kind? I think that probably they


ought to be so engaged, but would not that reduce the number who would be available as a field force? Therefore, I put the question, which was put when we first began this year to debate these Estimates, but which, according to my recollection, was not answered. In the event of a major war, and after that war has been raging for a limited period, are we still imagining that troops from our Territorial Army will be taken across the Channel to take part in a war in Europe? I do not believe that anyone really supposes that anything like that will happen. Are we still organising the training of the Territorial Army upon that out-of-date assumption?
I put these two questions which, I think, are cardinal to the training of the Territorial Army, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something in reply.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I continue this hunt for a Director-General of the Territorial Army? I feel that the training of the Territorial Army, which is covered by Subhead E of this Vote, is obviously a matter which is essentially the responsibility of a Director-General.
I wish to make the point, as forcibly and as briefly as possible, that I think it regrettable that there have been fairly frequent changes in the occupant of this post. It is important, especially now that the Territorial Army is undergoing big changes, that its training in its new rôle should be under the supervision of someone who, at least, has the benefit of some years' experience of the Territorial Army at work.
The Territorial Army has been—I will not say used as a dumping ground, because that would be a most ungracious thing to say—but it has, unfortunately, had as Directors-General officers who have served with distinction in other parts of the world, but who, perhaps it might have been thought, were in need of a rest. I can think of nothing more remote from the needs of the Territorial Army than a Director-General who needs a rest.
Today, the work of the Territorial Army more than justifies the sum of £7,030,000 which we are asked for under this Vote. I think it most important that we should get the fullest possible value for that money. I submit to the Committee that if we wish to obtain that value,

we must have a Director-General who is allowed to plan in his job and to know that he will remain in that position for a considerable period. Although very distinguished officers have held this position, I regret that the changes have been so frequent. I know that many units of the Territorial Army hold the same view. They have respected their Directors, but they are disturbed because there have been so many changes.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) referred to the rôle which the Territorial Army will play in the future. The particular regiment with which I am most concerned is, naturally, the Cambridgeshire Regiment. On behalf of the officers and men of that regiment I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the attention paid by the War Office to the great traditions of the regiment when planning its future. I do not know whether it has been made public officially—it has certainly appeared in the local Press—but I understand that their future rule is to be that of an airborne unit. If so, I hope that the money which we are voting now will be used to the fullest advantage.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. and gallant Member is now being a little ingenuous, because this is not covered by the Vote.

Major Legge-Bourke: Surely we are now voting money for the training of the Territorial Army and I am entitled to refer to the amount of money that a particular Territorial unit or group of units may require out of that sum. I am endeavouring to keep within the bounds of order, but if I am out of order I will, of course, sit down. I feel, however, that where a Territorial unit or a number of units are to make a considerable change in the rôle they are to play, it is most important that they shall not, through sheer parsimony, be retarded from carrying through that part of their conversion which causes the biggest expenditure.
As I visualise it, this new rôle for the Cambridgeshire Regiment will mean that some of the officers will inevitably be involved in a greater amount of travelling than in the past in order to carry out their duties properly. If that be so, I hope that we shall not have them perpetually bombarded from higher up


because they are spending too much money in getting this new unit into as cohesive a condition as possible. I think hon. Members opposite would agree that the rôle to be played by this regiment is one fitting to the present situation, and is certainly in no way an attempt to win the last war—if I may use that expression.
I do not wish to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who apparently proposes to raise points relating to the Home Guard. I am glad that he intends to do so, because there is no question that, unfortunately, east of the line from Flamborough Head to Selsey Bill the Home Guard has been less successful than west of that line, whereas it was required more in the east. We in East Anglia happen to be east of this line.
There appears to be an erroneous impression in the minds of certain officers—some of them senior officers—that the Home Guard is regarded as the Prime Minister's private army. I do not know where that rumour started, but I am almost certain that it started at somewhere about War Office level. If that be so, I think it wrong. Certainly, when the Home Guard was first created many of us considered it absolutely essential. In fact, I said so in my constituency before the Home Guard was created. I therefore consider it wrong to single out the Home Guard and describe it as the private possession of one person, even if that individual happens to be the Prime Minister.
The future of the Home Guard in East Anglia is causing a great deal of concern because the "overheads," as it were, the cost of administration, is extremely excessive in the light of what has been achieved by way of recruiting. There is no question that those who have joined the Home Guard have done so wholeheartedly. But, with the new arrangements mentioned during the defence debate, including the question of mobile columns and that sort of thing, I feel that we must ensure that the mobile defence columns and the rôle of the Territorial Army are complementary to each other, and that we do not become divided into too many little bits.
I hope we shall do everything we can to maintain local interest. I hope, also, that it will not be thought that just

because we propose to change one unit of the Home Guard into a mobile column it should lose its regimental badge. Many members of the Home Guard are old soldiers, and the traditions of their regiments are considerable. We should endeavour to maintain the regimental esprit de corps.
If it is not possible to make a national change we ought not to assume that no changes at all can be made. The geography and characteristics of our country vary very considerably from place to place. Strategy and tactics will vary accordingly if war should break out. Therefore, let us do what is sensible from the military point of view in each area. If it so suits parts of East Anglia to have its Home Guard merged into mobile columns or an emergency reserve, let it happen, but let us not say that because we do it in East Anglia it should happen everywhere. We have to fight the desire of the War Office for uniformity.
I make a plea for local measures to suit local conditions, and that the men concerned should be able to take a real pride in whatever they are doing.

Mr. Wyatt: I now come back to my early speech which you, Sir Rhys, brought to a premature close during the discussion upon Vote 1. I understand that it will now be in order to discuss the pay of non-Regular officers serving in the Home Guard. This is one of the mistakes which the Secretary of State has made and to which he clings with such touching affection.

Mr. Head: It is also one of the hon. Member's old chestnuts.

Mr. Wyatt: It may be an old chestnut, and if it is considered to be a silly pastime to harry the Government because one considers that they waste money, I confess to the charge.
I think it important to go on protesting that they are wasting money, even if it bores the Secretary of State. We could mention new mistakes every week, but one is enough now, and that is the right hon. Gentleman's mistake about the Home Guard. He announced its formation with a great flourish of trumpets soon after he took office. He said that the Government would form a large Home Guard and that 100,000 men would be required east of a line drawn from Flam-borough Head to Selsey Bill and another


25,000 west of that line. Special tasks would be allocated in special areas where the Government considered likely targets to be situated.
The right hon. Gentleman also made special allowances in the Army Estimates for an enrolment figure of 165,000, and he referred to an overall ceiling of 175,000. Very few recruits arrived, and the Secretary of State was in a very sorry state about it. He began to say, "Not only have we the whole-time volunteers, but also other people in reserve," and he began to mix up the figures so as to make it difficult to understand which were whole-time and which were on the peacetime register, only to be called upon if war broke out. Even today he has estimated for only 12,500 officers and 42,500 other ranks to be looked after in the coming year. I think that that is well above the number he has now got.
Unfortunately, he got most men where they were least needed—west of the line—and least men where they were most needed—east of the line. Such is his obstinacy and that of the Government to which he belongs, however, that they still refuse to abandon this quite absurd and useless force. Although they have sent out a circular recommending that training should not be strenuous and frequent, and that things should be taken easily, they still continue to maintain this force, which can be of no value whatever in any future war which is depicted in the Defence White Paper.
It may be said that the men will be very useful for Civil Defence duties, but surely the right hon. Gentleman already has enough personnel at his disposal in the Territorial Army—about half of which could be organised much more efficiently upon a whole-time basis for Civil Defence work than could the Home Guard, whose members are at work all day. It is not to be expected that an enemy would so conveniently arrange his aerial attacks as to make Civil Defence necessary only during the night time. It will not be a part-time job, so, in any event, the Home Guard will have no function to perform in a future war.
Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister know this, but they dare not admit their mistakes, because they are not big enough to do so. They will not say, "We have made a mistake. We are now wasting £600,000 a year upon the

Home Guard and we are going to stop doing so." They have spent £2 million already upon this force, which has done nothing except please the Prime Minister when it was introduced.
The adjutant-quartermaster in the Home Guard now receives £670 a year upon being first engaged, and an extra £35 every three years. I have here a letter from a man who served as adjutant-quartermaster in the Home Guard for two and a half years. He says:
I realised what a racket it was.
Referring to the adjutant-quartermaster, he says:
His work can easily be done in 2–3 hours per day and he only normally has one evening parade per week, of approximately two hours, apart from an occasional shoot on the local range on Sunday morning generally, and not often in the winter.
He goes on:
The Officers' Pensions Society has an enormous number of retired Regular officers, of all ranks, not only fully capable of doing this job, but who, furthermore, would very willingly take it on for a nominal salary of, say, £150 or for their expenses, or even voluntarily.
I think that that is true. It is clear that about 550 persons are being paid £670 a year or more for doing practically nothing. This really is a scandal.
In addition, there are 800 storemen clerks who receive £6 a week for doing less than an adjutant-quartermaster. My correspondent says, of Adjutant-Quartermasters:
When they are away on holiday or through illness it is found quite unnecessary to engage a temporary substitute.
Nobody bothers to get a replacement, and the storeman clerk takes over the work. It is plain that neither has very much work to do.
The Home Guard has been a complete fiasco. There are very few people in the battalions, and it is very stupid to continue with an organisation which has no function in the future, has had no function since the end of the war, and is simply wasting £600,000 a year.

8.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I will deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), who asked about the future rôle of the Territorial Army. He mentioned page 32 of the Estimates which contains, needless


to say, an accurate account, so far as it goes, of our intentions for the use of the Territorial Army. He also raised the question of Civil Defence.
There are two aspects of Civil Defence. All members of both the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, and, indeed, of the other Services, are to be trained to some extent in Civil Defence. In addition, there are the mobile defence columns, which will form part of the Army Emergency Reserve, and which, in the main, will consist of National Service men. So far as the senior officers and N.C.Os. are concerned, they will be drawn to some extent from the Territorial Army, and we hope to get a certain number of volunteers from the anti-aircraft regiments which are being disbanded. We hope that the officers and N.C.Os. from certain units which are being disbanded may volunteer en bloc for mobile defence columns. In that way we hope to be able to continue to retain and give continuity to the traditions of existing units which might otherwise have disappeared, and also to maintain the esprit de corps which is such an important factor.
The hon. Member asked whether this would mean a reduction in the field force, and whether this would affect the Territorial Army's rôle as a field force. The answer is that there is no reason why it should. In certain circumstances, the Territorial Army and, indeed, the units of the Regular Army might find it necessary to give a hand with Civil Defence, but that is no reason why they should not be perfectly ready, in other circumstances, to fulfil their rôle as a field force.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Territorial Army would, in fact, ever be sent overseas. The answer is that in certain circumstances it is conceivable that it would, and we should be taking a great risk if we were to ignore the possibility of it being needed as a field force. My right hon. Friend went into all this in considerable detail in his speech last week.
One consideration, and a very important one, is our obligation towards N.A.T.O., which we should not be able to fulfil if the Territorial Army did not exist. I think that it needs to be emphasised that in the event of a thermonuclear war—a hydrogen bomb war—that

it is naturally very difficult to foresee with any accuracy the course of events, but if one thing is to be more useful than another it is trained bodies of men, and I think that that applies to the Territorial Army and also to the Home Guard. There is no doubt that trained bodies of men with initiative and discipline will be able to help, if anybody can.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) raised the question of the Director of the Territorial Army. We fully appreciate the importance of that job. It is sometimes suggested that we do not attribute sufficient importance to it, and that he should be made a Director-General. The answer is that he does already fulfil extremely well a very important rôle, and the importance of his r ôle is fully realised. I think I am right in saying that the present occupant of the post has held it for three and a half years and his predecessor for three years, so, as far as continuity in appointment goes, that is really quite a good record.
I was grateful for what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the Cambridgeshire Regiment. We were very glad, in that case, to be able to preserve the continuity which I mentioned just now in connection with the Territorial Army as a whole. We were glad to be able to maintain the great traditions which the Cambridgeshire Regiment has continued for a great number of years in different rôles. I am sure that the regiment will distinguish itself in its new rôle which should appeal to it, no less than it has in its past rôles.
Wherever possible we have tried to preserve the identity of regiments, and even where it has been necessary to disband a regiment we have kept on batteries which will continue the regimental tradition and the possibility—where this has not been practicable with regiments—that officers and N.C.O.s might volunteer in groups to serve in mobile defence columns and preserve the identity of regiments, most of whom have extremely distinguished traditions.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) made his usual spirited attack on the Home Guard, which he described as an absurd and useless force of no value whatever. I dispute that very strongly indeed. I have been very much impressed by what I have seen of the Home Guard


since I have been at the War Office and—

Mr. Wyatt: Where did the hon. Gentleman find it?

Mr. Maclean: I found a lot of it, spread all over the country, on both sides of the line.
The figures are not as discouraging as the hon. Member tries to make out. There are 37,000 enrolled men and 39,000 on the reserve rôle; that makes 76,000 men, being an increase of 14,000 over last year's figure. The hon. Member is always talking about waste of money in this connection. The outlay is remarkably small for the value that we get. We should be extremely grateful, instead of carping at them like that, to these public-spirited men who give up their time to do what will prove an extremely useful job. I have been very much impressed by the high standard of training and by the keenness and forward-looking attitude of Home Guard units that I have seen.
The hon. Member attacked, in particular, adjutants-quartermasters. I have seen and talked to several adjutants of the Home Guard. They seemed extremely valuable and were the pivots around which the whole thing centred. They seemed to be fulfilling a very useful function extremely well. The hon. Member makes a great mistake in underestimating the possible value of the Home Guard in any future war or emergency. It is always possible to say, about any weapon or formation, that if it sustains a direct hit from a hydrogen bomb it will not be much good. The hon. Member would not be much good if that were to happen to him, but the fact remains that in any sort of war the value of a trained and disciplined body of men, which the Home Guard undoubtedly is, can be considerable.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Home Guard is going to do, extra to the 500,000 men already in the Territorial Army? What is to be its function?

Mr. Maclean: First, we have to remember the very great value of local knowledge, local contacts and local traditions. I was very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely drew attention to that in what

I thought a very valuable contribution to our debate. I saw something of what could be done by local citizens during the war. In the resistance movements in Europe there were men below, or far above military age fulfilling extremely valuable functions because they knew the country "Backwards." They could act as guides, knew exactly where an ambush could be placed, and knew the moment any stranger arrived in the district. They knew what he was doing and how to deal with him.
I have been guided over mountains by old men of 70 who were extremely active and knew their way around, and by quite small children. To say that the Home Guard would be no good at all in defeating attempts at sabotage and defeating surprise landings by air-borne troops is to take a very negative view. I think there is no doubt that the Home Guard have a most important potential rôle in the defence of this country. It fits into the whole comprehensive picture of home defence along with the Territorial Army, the Regular Army and the mobile defence columns.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am sure we are all much interested and encouraged by this picture of the Home Guard as the resistance movement in future in this country. That is a rôle not previously outlined for it—

Mr. Head: It was, definitely.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has described very graphically how he was guided over mountains by old men and young children. Does he believe that, from his experience, to do that kind of work they need to be trained by adjutant-quartermasters, at £670 a year?

Mr. F. Beswick: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, may I ask him about the air-borne troops which are to be dropped and against which the Home Guard are to act? Are they to be dropped before thermo-nuclear weapons, or afterwards to help us clear up the mess?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question goes beyond the Vote.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry, Sir Rhys, that by your timely intervention you prevented me from discussing the question of whether enemy parachute troops are


likely to be dropped before or after the thermo-nuclear bomb and whether they would land in the same place, or somewhere else. Obviously, that is a subject we could talk about indefinitely.
On the questions of whether or not training makes troops more useful, whether, having a certain amount of administration behind them, makes them more useful either for resisting sabotage or for making themselves a nuisance to enemy forces of occupation, or enemy forces attempting to occupy this country, I have no doubt whatever in saying that I think the sort of administration and basic military experience which these adjutant-quartermasters can give—most of them have had a long and distinguished military career—can do nothing but good.
8.45 p.m.
In the Resistance movements in Europe, most of the old men of 70 whom I have mentioned had fought vigorously in one or more wars earlier in their lives. What they had picked up in those wars was of extreme value to them. I am surprised that the hon. Member should ask whether they are any good: it seems to me that they were.
We have covered most of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate on this Vote, and I do not think we should take up any more of the time that belongs to the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wigg: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time of the Committee belongs to any one Service. I trust that he will not say that again. He does not mean it, I know, but that was the sort of intervention that we had from the Admiralty, when a political atmosphere was introduced. The time of this Committee belongs to the Committee, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not go into such matters as we think right. On Thursday, on Report, we can, and we shall, examine the Royal Air Force.
Hon. Members can give what undertaking they like, but they completely misunderstand—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We had better come to the Vote.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir Rhys, if hon. Gentlemen, even under their breath, intervene, I surely have a right to reply.

Mr. Head: Underneath your breath?

The Deputy-Chairman: We must keep the debate relevant to the Vote that we are considering.

Mr. Wigg: I am coming to the Vote, when I am allowed to do so.
The Under-Secretary is in some difficulty, for, of course, there is a case for the Home Guard. The Labour Government laid the preparations for the Home Guard should the necessity ever arise. In 1951, the introduction of the Home Guard Bill was a piece of nonsense which happens to fit in the faulty appreciation of the Prime Minister. In consequence, we wasted a lot of public money and the time of a lot of public-spirited gentlemen. I hope it will not go out from the House of Commons that we are criticising their efforts. The people whom we are criticising are those on the Government Benches, but I do not include the Under-Secretary
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's wartime experience, there is a case for the Home Guard, and if ever we found ourselves in trouble it would be an overwhelming case, and it would bring a great response. I have no doubt that, just as the elderly gentlemen and the little children whom he talked about came to the aid of their country, the elderly gentlemen and children of Britain would play their part if the need should come. What we are now criticising is the waste of public money and the waste of time of citizens who are doing nothing more than serving the 1951 political stunt of the Prime Minister. Having said that we ought not to keep a Home Guard, let us remember that the money has been spent and let us make the best of it. That has been my attitude. I fought the Home Guard Act, but I am not now denigrating those who give their time to that service.
I am sorry if I am cutting into any kind of undertaking, but there are one or two important matters which must be raised. On 1st January, we had no fewer than 76,000 volunteers in the Territorial Army, 59,000 volunteers from National Service and 320,000 part-time National Service men. I wanted to find out what the Army and the Air Force


were doing with these men, and the Army seems to be doing fairly well. I had a written answer on 4th March showing that the Territorial Army was substantially using the services of National Service men and volunteers.
It was just a little suspicious, however, when I asked for the numbers who underwent part-time training, during 1954, and was told that:
The Army does not maintain records of numbers out-of-camp training." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 310.]
I am always suspicious when the Army cannot get or give information. I am sorry, but I am just a little suspicious. I believe that the full-time training is all right, but I am very doubtful about the part-time training—especially when I look at what goes on in the Royal Air Force, which has a black record. That is my answer to my hon. Friends who want to get on to the Air Estimates.
Anti-Aircraft Command has gone, and the whole future of the Territorial Army is in the melting pot. It is being reconsidered. I ask the Secretary of State for War one question. Is it the intention of the Government, by administrative action, to whittle down the part-time obligations of the National Service men? I asked the hon. Gentleman—he may remember it—at Question Time recently whether it was the intention to introduce legislation to reduce the period of part-time service, and at once, rather quickly, I thought—he took the bait rather too swiftly—he said that it did not require legislation to do that. I knew that, and the fact that he answered so quickly made me think that, after all, this was what he had up his sleeve.
It is highly inconvenient for the Government to admit that, in part, the National Service Acts are not working, but we know they are not, because of the figures of the Royal Air Force. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State during the coming financial year, the period covered by these Estimates, to play down the call-up of men on a part-time basis'? Are we to find that the number of men called up for annual training is less than the number of men available?
I ask one question. It affects 500,000 young men earning their livelihood, who want to know if they are to be called up. Are they to be called up during the financial year covered by these Estimates?

Or is it the intention, by administrative action, to have only a haphazard call-up, so that Tommy is called up and Harry is not?

Mr. Head: Perhaps I can save the hon. Gentleman from becoming too indignant by saying that nothing whatever has been announced, as he well knows, about any change in the present scheme. Nothing whatever has been announced about any difference in the scheme of part-time service which has obtained, I think I am right in saying, ever since National Service was introduced. Nothing to that effect has been announced.

Mr. Wigg: Ah.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says "Ah," but he might just as well ask me if I have in mind any changes in the Army next year or the year after that. It is absurd to ask for a categorical assurance that there will be no change in this, that, or the other.
The hon. Gentleman would mislead the Committee and anybody else who listens to him if he were to assume, because I will not give that assurance, that there is some idea of making a change or that there is not. It is never possible for any Minister to give an assurance about policies in the future. That must be obvious to anybody. As I have said, and as I say again, there is no intention to change this scheme at the present time. If there were such an intention, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it would have to be announced at once, for the camps are starting almost immediately.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,600,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 310,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 300,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 324,400, all ranks), Home Guard (to a number not exceeding 55,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £30,460,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Mr. M. Stewart: I will again be very brief and put one or two questions. The policy that has been announced is that, following the disappearance of the Suez base, there is to be a redeployment of our forces and a building up of the strategic Reserve in this country. I take it that that means that a greater proportion of the Army will be at home and a lesser proportion abroad.
Are the Government satisfied that the figures provided in the Vote are adequate to meet the increased demand for barrack accommodation and married quarters at home which follows from that policy? According to page 146 of the Army Estimates, the amount to be voted for married quarters at home under this Vote is only slightly greater than the amount which was to be voted last year whereas, according to page 148, the amount to be voted for married quarters abroad this year is decidedly greater than the amount to be voted for married quarters abroad last year.
One would have thought that, in view of the policy adopted, the increase would be greater for married quarters at home than for those abroad, but judging from the figures the opposite appears to be the case. Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State give an explanation on that point?
I should like also to have an assurance that sufficient provision has been made for barrack accommodation to make certain that if the Government carry through the redeployment which is envisaged, and build up the strategic Reserve in this country, the men will be living under reasonable barrack conditions.

Mr. Head: That is a perfectly good and sensible point. One of the problems in this country is the maintenance and repair of existing married quarters. Relative to overseas, the numbers in this country have been very much improved in the six years since the married-quarter loan was introduced—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Head: As I was saying, very considerable progress was made during the six years after the introduction of the married-quarter loan.
So far as home is concerned, the problem which in particular we are attacking is the maintenance, repair and improvement of existing married quarters, a programme which has recently been introduced. The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) asked whether we were satisfied about barracks. Frankly, the answer is, "No." Although what we plan at the moment is a very steep increase for this year, no one pretends that it will not be a long time before any Government or Secretary of State is satisfied in that respect. As I said in my speech on the Estimates, the problem has been one of planning and getting the labour and materials. No one could pretend that barracks in this country are in a state in which one would wish them to be for the reception of troops coming back consequent upon redeployment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £30,460,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Orders of the Day — VOTE 9

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,880,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: There are two brief questions I should like to put to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Government are now in a position to give an encouraging answer on the question of the education of children of Service personnel. If the Government are not in a position to give us a more encouraging answer, could they have one ready by Thursday?
Secondly, the educational work described in this Vote is done under the direction of the Director of Army Education. When last I questioned the Secretary of State on this matter, the Director of Army Education held a rank inferior to his opposite numbers in the other two Services. It was not a very reasonable arrangement, since there is a good deal of inter-Service educational activity and he bears the brunt of that work. I hope


we may hear that he has now been given an equivalent rank with them, and that that has been achieved by his going up rather than his opposite numbers coming down. Perhaps the Secretary of State can reply to this.

Mr. Simmons: I should like to raise a point on Subhead D, "Charges for Hospital Services, &c.", which says:
No payment is made by the Army for treatment of military patients in general wards of civil hospitals under the National Health Service or in naval or air force hospitals and, similarly, no recovery is made by the Army for the treatment in Army hospitals of civilians in the United Kingdom or of naval or air force personnel.
We are asked to approve an amount of £63,000 for hospital services and we are told that this covers officers admitted
to special accommodation in National Health Service civil hospitals.
Why that distinction? The National Health Service as such is good enough for the other ranks and should be good enough for the officers. Why should the taxpayers have to foot a bill of £63,000 for preferential treatment for the officer class when there is no special regard for the ordinary soldier and other ranks who are accommodated quite adequately in civilian hospitals under the National Health Services?
The other point I want to raise refers to reduced expenditure under the heading, "Welfare Expenses." I see that the expenditure is down by £18,500. I should like to know what kind of welfare this is, whether it is welfare in the shape of providing baths, buns, beer and billiards or whether more welfare officers are looking after the worries and the troubles of the men under their command. That would make a difference. I do not mind some reduction in the baths, buns, beer and billiards side of it, but I do not think we should have any reduction in the amount for the care of those men, especially the younger National Service men who are away from their parents and homes. That kind of welfare ought to be stepped up rather than cut down.
Then there is this heading "Extra-Regulation Expenditure." We should have some explanation about this, because it seems rather curious to me. It says that the money provided under this subhead is
to meet small items of expenditure for military purposes, not covered by regulations …

Does that involve cocktail parties, or things like that? It is a bit of a curious set-up. Here is £2,000 tucked away to be used for something, nobody knows what. I think we ought to have some explanation.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. Stewart) asked me whether I could make a statement on the subject of education. This was a matter which was discussed at some length in the Estimates debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that we had that very much in mind. I think it is one of the most important things now confronting us. I have not got a statement to make, and I cannot give an undertaking that I shall have one on Thursday, but it is a matter of very much concern to us. The hon. Member also asked me about the Director of Army Education. He is now a major-general.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) asked me about the charge for the National Health scheme for officers. There are different standards in the Army for officers and for other ranks. For instance, when officers of a certain rank travel, they are given a first-class ticket. I believe that standard to be right and it is reflected in all other armies. The Russians tried uniformity, giving everyone the same clothes and the same barrack rooms, but they ran into trouble. The hon. Gentleman and 1 could argue this subject ad infinitum, but I do not think we would agree. If the hon. Gentleman thinks it wrong, I believe that, if we give added responsibility, a certain status and authority should be maintained.
As far as a welfare cut is concerned, I can assure him that in our view the person primarily responsible for the welfare of the men is the officer in charge. That is fundamental to all welfare in all three Services. Beyond that, I agree that there are many helpers, among whom are the various voluntary welfare associations, who are of great help to the Army all over the world. I am determined that we should not reduce that kind of welfare, especially in Germany, because it is the kind of welfare we want. The welfare work of the W.V.S. in the N.A.A.F.I. canteens and elsewhere is of great importance and it is not our intention to cut that side of it.
As regards the £2,000, I am speaking without exact knowledge and I will write


to the hon. Gentleman if I find I am wrong, but I think that this is for a very small fund for commanding officers which cuts out a lot of red tape and files and authority for small expenditure.

Mr. J. Hudson: I am emboldened to ask a question, in view of a statement made by the Minister about welfare in reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) about beer and skittles.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Oh.

Mr. Hudson: I always get that from the noble Lord, but would anyone expect me to be quiet when that issue comes up?
There was a time in the Army when support of the soldier against temptations put in his way was made a matter of the greatest concern by the best commanding officers in the land. I can recall the part Lord Roberts played in this matter and, many years afterwards, Sir Ian Hamilton and men of that type.
A definite temperance movement was developed inside the Army which had for its object both the education of the soldier as to the dangers involved and the establishment of ideals of abstinence, as far as that was possible, by example. I should like to know that this work is not entirely dead. It is an issue of the greatest importance in those great Departments of the Army involved in motor transport because of the necessity of avoiding such temptation during periods of work. That is important also for the civilians outside the Army, many of whom do not know much about it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can report that attention is paid by the welfare department of the Army, by the Army chaplains and by the commanding officers to the necessity of establishing amongst soldiers a habit of temperance towards strong drink which might have a real influence on their lives and also on their greater efficiency as soldiers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say a word about that. I gathered nothing from him on that subject. It may be that he will speak about it later.

Mr. Head: If it will help things along—I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am doing my best—I can tell him that

the number of offences for drunkenness in the Army has gone down and that the sales of mineral waters in N.A.A.F.I. everywhere have gone steadily up. However, I do not think that anything that I do or that any one else does will put an end to a certain fondness for beer on the part of the British soldier, which, although I know it goes against the grain for the hon. Gentleman, is not a thing which can be abolished; and in that respect the Army is the same as the rest of the civil population.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,880,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £19,440,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has announced a change in policy in connection with the administration of the non-effective services. I congratulate him on the fact that he is going to centralise the administration of the payment of soldiers' pensions, but what is not clear is whether, when he has done that, the link between the grant of a pension to an other rank and the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, is to be broken.
I understand that, at the moment, legally, those of us who are in receipt of other ranks' pensions draw them as if we were out-patients of the Royal Hospital. On page 179 of the Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman will find reference to in-patients of the Royal Hospital, and they are other ranks who surrender their Service pension because they become patients of the Royal Hospital.
The matter may require legislation. If so, is legislation to be introduced, or is it merely that the right hon. Gentleman is assembling under one roof the payment of all other ranks' pensions? For a long time the spirit of the administration of other ranks' pensions has left a lot to be desired. I welcome the payment of disability pensions by the Ministry of Pensions. I should have thought that it would have been a saving of public


money if the payment of all other ranks' pensions had been handed over to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, as the pensions are borne on the right hon. Gentleman's Vote, presumably he wants to keep some control over them. He has, however, centralised their payment, and perhaps he would tell us whether in future he intends to introduce legislation so that there may be a complete cutting away from the spirit of "Good Nell Gwyn."

Mr. Swingler: We welcome any improvement in the administration of these matters, but what is really required is an improvement in pensions. I should like 'to know what the Under-Secretary of State and the Army Council are doing about making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the improvement of the retired pay of officers and of pensions. The hon. Gentleman had a good rattling the other night from some of his hon. Friends, and I hope he appreciates that there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who do not intend to let the matter drop.
Under this Vote, more than 100 pensioners are drawing pensions at rates fixed in 1878, and others at rates fixed in 1881 and 1887. Successive Governments are to blame, for they have done nothing about this. The very meagre concessions made last year go only a small way towards providing some measure of justice for retired officers and other ranks on pension, many of whom have to exist on pensions at rates which are completely obsolete and have no relation to the present cost of living.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will appreciate that he will hear more and more about this matter. If he and the Secretary of State would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make clear that there is a strong body of opinion in the Committee that demands that these pensions should be reviewed, and that there should be an improvement in the pensions as well as in the administration, they will go some way towards satisfying the case.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: On a point of order. There are one or two of my hon. Friends who appear to be under the misapprehension that this is exempted business and that the debate can continue indefinitely.

There are some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee who believe that to be the case. Would you, Sir Charles, make quite clear what the procedure is? Is it the case that business comes to a close at 10 o'clock, and that the Air Estimates, to which it was originally thought at least two hours' discussion would be devoted, will now have certainly less than three-quarters of an hour available for their discussion? Is it also the case that this House, which purports to be able to arrange a massive reorganisation of the Services in a nuclear age, is quite incapable of organising its business to discuss the Air Estimates as it planned?

The Chairman: It is quite true that I report Progress at ten o'clock.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should like to support what my hon. Friends have said about officers' pensions. The Under-Secretary spoke in an Adjournment debate the other night, and he knows that his explanation was not accepted by hon. Members on either side of the House. He and his right hon. Friend will be hearing more of this matter in the not-too-distant future. If he will refer to Subhead M—"Gratuities to Unestablished Civilians," he will find that the Estimate under that heading has increased from £220,000 in the past year to £510,000 this year, that is to say, it has been more than doubled.
I want to ask the Government if this increase has anything to do with the dismissal of civilian staff arising from the winding up of Anti-Aircraft Command. The Under-Secretary will be aware that in Anti-Aircraft Command a number of highly competent civilian technicians were employed. They had good qualifications in connection with radar equipment, electronic computors, radio links and all that sort of thing.
With the winding up or disbanding of Anti-Aircraft Command, these men are being allowed to drift into industry, or to make their own arrangements. That represents a very severe loss to our defence arrangements. If these men were not wanted by the War Office, they should have been taken over by the Air Ministry. I hope that this large increase in this Estimate does not mean that these excellent men, who have done valuable work of high technical skill for some years past in Anti-Aircraft Command, are


being allowed to drift back to industry, thus to be lost for ever to Government service.

Mr. F. Maclean: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised the question of the pensions of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. The position about the in-pensioners in the Royal Hospital is that they remain as they are and will continue to be administered by the hospital. On the other hand, out-pensioners will now have their pensions administered by a separate organisation outside the hospital, and under the control of the War Office. I think that the hon. Member will agree that that is a satisfactory arrangement.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) raised the question of retirement pensions. As I pointed out the other night, this is essentially an inter-Service matter, and one which is regarded sympathetically by all concerned. Naturally, we have sympathy for the retired officers in question, but it is an inter-Service matter concerning the Ministry of Defence, and I can add nothing to what I said previously.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) raised the question of gratuities to unestablished civilians under Subhead M of Vote 10, and commented on the increase from £220,000 to £510,000. So far as I am aware, that increase has no connection with the disbanding of anti-Aircraft Command. It is due to the provision made for the payment of gratuities to locally entered civilian staff whose employment will end with the evacuation of the Canal Zone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,440,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Orders of the Day — Air Estimates, 1955–56

VOTE 1. PAY, &c., OF THE AIR FORCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £88,960,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: We have not long left to deal with the Committee stage of the largest of the Service Estimates, but we must do the best we can in the time we have. I wish to raise a few points of detail, and then to make a general point. We have heard a great deal of discussion about the use of local and colonial forces, and, therefore, I wonder why there is a reduction in the local levies in Aden and Iraq.
In page 23 of the Estimates there is a reference to awards for languages. A first-class interpreter receives a certain award, and others receive an award for colloquial proficiency. There appears to be nothing in between. It has been pointed out to me that ininternational organisations, such as N.A.T.O., a number of our officers do work which falls between these two standards. They have to be better than merely colloquially proficient, but not as good as first-class interpreters. Unless it be for Japanese or Chinese, there is no award given for anything between a first-class interpreter and one who has colloquial proficiency.
In page 25, reference is made to bounties which I notice are to be increased considerably this year. I wish to know the reason for that. Does it forecast an increase in re-engagements for long service, because, if so, I welcome it?
I now come to the more general point. On page 19 of the Estimates there is a reference to an increase in National Service grants. Are those grants to be increased because of the increased dependence of the Royal Air Force upon National Service men in the coming year? This increased dependence upon National Service men is wrong, and the Government are at fault in accepting it. Their aim should be to reduce the numbers of National Service men until these grants become unnecessary—and yet the evidence to be adduced from the White Paper, the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates, and everything which Government spokesmen have said in these defence debates, is that the Government


are wedded to National Service for its own sake.
Of course, for them it has the advantage of being the laziest way of manning a Service, and the Government appear to be falling back upon it as a permanent feature. Neither the White Paper nor the Memorandum mentioned the original purpose of National Service, which is to provide for cold war commitments and to build up a Reserve. We know that our cold war commitments have been reduced, and we also know that the deployment of the Royal Air Force in war is such that very little use could be made of the Reserve.
The Secretary of State forecast last year that during the year there would be a reduction in the proportion of National Service men in the Royal Air Force from the level of 26 per cent. at which it stood. In fact the proportion has remained at 26 per cent., and it is expected to rise to 30 per cent. during this year. That should be worrying the Government, and yet their whole attitude this year, as in previous years, has been one of general complacency. They have expressed concern only about the most serious shortage of skilled tradesmen. The Government must make clear what steps they are taking to reach a stage when it is possible to do without National Service.
The first step would be to make Regular service more attractive. We all agree about that, but how are we to make it so? First, if we want technicians we must pay for them. I have in my hand four pages, torn from the back of a recent number of the "R.A.F. Flying Review," and which consist almost entirely of advertisements for skilled tradesmen. Most of the advertisements offer very good opportunities, and cover electronics, high-grade radar, instrument mechanics, and positions with Fairey Aviation, Hawker, Limited, and Metro-politan-Vickers.
There are whole pages consisting of advertisements competing with Royal Air Force requirements and these advertisements come from the Royal Air Force's own journal. The only other advertisement is for a lighthouse keeper. That seems to be asking for a man who is seeking a greater degree of seclusion after living with the pressure of many people all round him in a barrack room. The Government do not seem to realise that

they are in desperate competition with industry in this matter of skilled manpower.
9.30 p.m.
The second way of making Regular service more attractive, and thus reducing the need for National Service, is to deal with the problem of the education of the children of Service men who are moved from one station to another. As his father is posted about the country, a child may have to go to as many as nine schools. He may be forced to go to a Welsh-speaking community, where the instruction in the school is wholly in Welsh.
The problem has been eased for certain people in the Foreign Service, and, I am told, for certain civilians in the Air Ministry service who are sent abroad. The least we can do is to see that the position is also eased for the Service men who are sent abroad, so that while they are abroad they may be able to send their children, if they wish to do so, to boarding schools here at home.
Another obvious way is to reduce the number of postings. The other day we had an excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam), who referred to his experience of the "turbulence" in the Service caused by the number of postings. I do not know of any phrase more telling than that in paragraph 46 of the recent Select Committee which reported on technical training. It reads:
In fact, quite apart from the movements of trainees and National Service men, nearly half of the trained regular ground staff moved from one station to another during those six months.
The six months ended on 30th April last year. I find it almost impossible to believe.
I have the feeling that, 10 years after the war, it is a grave confession of failure that this amount of posting should still continue. I believe that some of it results from the mania for wall charts and the balancing of subordinate commands. If an electrician is missing at a certain station, without considering all the other human factors involved and, indeed, the Service factors, too—because an unhappy Service man is not a good one—an electrician is moved there to keep the pattern perfect, so that the squadron or unit is well-balanced. I ask that this human


side be considered at all levels of the Air Force because those men who are pushed around are the men we want to encourage to stay on, and thus reduce the need for National Service men.
We need, too, to reduce the requirement of Regulars by the policy of sending more equipment out for maintenance by civil contractors, and also by a policy of bringing in more civil servants rather than Service men. It was amazing to hear the Under-Secretary say last week that one-third of the staff of the Records Office still consisted of Service men.
The Government's manning policy has failed. I fear that, because of the easy answer of the National Service Acts, the Air Ministry and the Government are not treating it as the serious problem that it is. They should be working now to create a manning situation in the R.A.F. when it would be possible to do away entirely with National Service, which was introduced for conditions which scarcely prevail today and are less likely to prevail in the future.

Mr. Beswick: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on the necessity of cutting down the period of National Service to a point which would eliminate the National Service element altogether. The more specialised the Service, the more expensive the training, and the more essential it is to get long period men into the Service.
One way of doing that is by improving the conditions of the Regulars. I should like to see more figures showing the cost of training the succession of National Service men. Money saved in that direction could be divided into pay and allowances for the Regular men. I should like to know what it would amount to. I am sure that we could increase quite significantly the payment to the Regular men if we were able to cut out some of the most expensive training of the National Service men.
Although I feel very strongly about the National Service principle, I must say that National Service men on parade in the Royal Air Force always seem as smart and as efficient as any individuals could be. It would be wrong to suggest, or to give the impression when we criticise the idea of National Service, that we

are criticising individual men. I have seen them often on birthday parades and elsewhere. I have asked how many men were National Service men, and the answer has been 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. It seems extraordinary that we can get these individuals up to this efficiency in the short time that they have been in the Service. It is only right to say so.
Another point arises about educational allowances. I had a number of Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Defence about the possibility of giving allowances to Service men abroad who had children to educate. I have been told on successive occasions that the matter was being considered. Would the Under-Secretary of State be kind enough to tell us now what has prevented a decision so far being reached favourably to the ex-Service man who has this educational problem to contend with? The principle has been allowed in the case of the foreign service people in the Foreign Office; why should it not be allowed in the case of foreign service of this character?

The Chairman: Does this matter arise under the Vote?

Mr. Beswick: At the moment, there are no allowance figures in the Estimate, for the simple reason that the principle has not been admitted. I am asking whether it has been agreed that the educational allowance should be paid to the men serving abroad, in which case it should appear in the Vote. The fact that it does not appear in the Vote is what I am complaining about. Having said that, I will leave the point, hoping that the Under-Secretary of State will be good enough to tell us what the obstacle is in this matter.
My next remarks come under Subheads E and F, which cover lodging allowance and local overseas allowance. I took the opportunity last summer to take part in an expedition of the Royal Air Force Flying College to the North Pole. It would be churlish if I did not say how much I appreciated that opportunity and how impressed I was by the team work and technical efficiency of everybody who took part in the operation, from the air commodore to the airman who brought our hot soup when we were actually over the North Pole. I was impressed by the general spirit, and I take


this opportunity to pay a tribute to those with whom I was privileged to fly on that occasion.
I have a question about the pay and allowances of the Royal Observer Corps. A very small number of people is in the Corps and I understand that a proportion of these were to be established. The numbers are to be increased again, I understand, and the Air Ministry are trying to wriggle out of an undertaking which it gave to establish a given percentage of Royal Observer Corps personnel. Is it necessary to have these quibbles?
If we are to have the extra number and feel that they are essential, could we not establish the same proportion of the 80 as it was agreed to establish of the original 40, if I remember the figures aright? Cannot he give way on this point? Is it a question of money, or what is it? I am suggesting that he should give way to the original establishment of men serving in the Royal Observer Corps.

Mr. Wigg: Can we have information from the hon. Gentleman on the mission of General Templer in connection with the Royal Air Force? As the hon. Gentleman knows, General Templer is going to the Colonies to look at the organisation and administration of colonial forces and the Royal Air Force is concerned with that. If, Sir Charles, you have any doubt about my being in order, I should like to help you. I am raising this on Subhead C, "Pay, &c, of Local Personnel Abroad."
I am concerned with the Royal Air Force levies in Iraq, the personnel of the British Army lent to the Royal Air Force, and the Aden Protectorate levies. The numbers are not substantial, but at one time it was a considerable force and it goes back to the First World War. One would like to know whether General Templer is taking this in his stride on his way out. What I am really after is what General Templer is up to. If he is not looking into that part of the Royal Air Force which falls under Subhead C, I take it that he has purely an Army mission. If the hon. Gentleman would give us any information about the part played by the Royal Air Force in the use of colonial forces and how far that is a permanent policy, I should be very much obliged to him.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): A very large number of questions has been asked in a very short time. I do not profess to be able to answer all of them, but I will do my best.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) started by asking about the reduction in local levies. That matter was also asked about by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). This reduction does not apply to the Aden levies. It only applies to the Iraq levies and it is a deliberate and planned reduction of that force consequent upon the re-deployment in the Middle East and our changed requirements there. So far as I know, General Templer has not been asked to investigate that at all.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged.

Mr. Ward: The hon. Member for Lincoln asked why the amount for bounties was increased. The increase for bounties is necessary because the provision in 1954–55 was based on the assumption that the bounty schemes then in existence would come to an end in December, 1954, but in the event it was decided to extend those schemes. We hope that many people will take advantage of them and that they will be tempted by them to re-engage and extend their engagements. We hope this will be one of the added incentives we are always trying to provide.
The hon. Member for Lincoln and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) asked about National Service. They wondered when we would be able to do without it. I do not think we have ever made any secret of the fact that we cannot possibly do without it until we can get enough Regulars to man the Armed Forces and meet all our commitments in peace-time. Therefore, the question really is how we are to get more Regulars. I wish there were more time to develop that now. We are doing all we can about it. We do realise that we are in competition with industry. Of course, that makes our task immensely more difficult because the temptation to go to industry and live a civilian life instead of seeking a career in the Royal Air Force is very great. But we are looking all the time at our outside methods—that is, publicity, and so on—and particularly at conditions inside the Service, to try to attract these people.
9.45 p.m.
We know that turbulence—numerous postings—is one of the disincentives. I dealt with that in my speech in reply to the Amendment during the debate on the Air Estimates the other day. I pointed out then that this problem is not easy to deal with, because we lose about 75,000 airmen every year, which is equivalent to turning over the whole of our ground strength every three years. Therefore, for that reason alone—and, of course, there are other reasons—it is not easy to reduce the number of postings.
We have, however, been able to do one or two things to try to solve the problem, and we are now trying to make do with temporary manning shortages on stations rather than filling vacancies immediately so as to keep down the number of postings. We have also been able to screen N.C.O.s who hold key positions on their stations and to keep them there for five years. There are various other measures, too.
I dealt also last week with civilianisation. We have made considerable progress in the matter of civilians employed by the Air Ministry and the giving to civil contract of work for the Royal Air Force. Here again, however, industry itself is very short of the highly skilled technical men that we and industry must have if one or other of us is to do the work. We are finding difficulty in recruiting civilians in some places, particularly in outlying isolated places where they do not like living.
The increase in respect of local overseas allowances is due mainly to an expected increase in the number of families in local overseas allowances areas consequent upon the redeployment from the Canal Zone. I would ask the hon. Member for Uxbridge to allow me to write to him about the R.O.C.; I will look look into that very carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £88,960,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,709,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 230,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 11,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1956.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity of clearing up some misunderstandings which exist about the rôle of the H-reservist in Civil Defence. Page 29 of the Estimates mentions the H-reservists and their obligations under the Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Act, 1954, which the House dealt with a few months ago.
Then there is, as the Home Secretary mentioned in the defence debate recently, another task put on the H-reservists, that of training in fire-fighting, apart from this work in the mobile columns. I shall not develop the matter as time is now very short, but there is much uncertainty attaching to the H Reserve, because the Government have made so many different announcements at different times. It would help a great deal if the Under-Secretary of State could tell us what the liabilities of the H-reservists are now, and what it is proposed they should be, in Civil Defence and Home Defence.
Could he, at the same time, assure us about the Auxiliary Air Force—those 20 good squadrons? The first thing the new Minister of Defence did was to dishearten all the Auxiliary squadrons by completely changing their rôle and dismissing them as of no value at all. I feel particularly strongly about this because when I had the honour of serving as Under-Secretary of State in 1946, I had some little to do in helping the Auxiliaries to get going again after the war. Naturally, I have a large number of friends in those squadrons, and I have received a number of protests. Those protests are not only about what has been done but about the way in which it was done. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do to recapture the real enthusiasm and good service of the men of the Auxiliary squadrons?

Mr. Beswick: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has referred to the uncertainty of the H Reserve liabilities. I want to refer to the


unfairness of those liabilities. According to figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), there appear to be some 136,000 National Service men who have completed their full-time training and who now have Reserve liabilities. Out of that number of 136,000-odd only 77, according to the figures here, did part-time training during 1954:77 individuals. These are the figures according to HANSARD.

Mr. Ward: Seventy-seven people?

Mr. Beswick: Yes, 77.
On what principle were the 77 selected? What did they do, these remarkable 77? How were they selected? On what sort of queer process where they selected?

Mr. Ward: That 77 has got some noughts on it.

Mr. Beswick: If the hon. Gentleman is surprised I do not wonder at it, but 77 is the figure given here.
Would he tell us about these people? How were they selected? Why were they wanted? What happened to all the others? Had they no liability for duties? Had they no part-time obligation remaining to them?

Mr. Wigg: I think my hon. Friend is confusing the Under-Secretary of State. He is a little confused. That is because, I think, the number 77 relates to those men doing evening training. The 7,000 the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us about are those men doing their annual training.

Mr. Beswick: My hon. Friend is quite right. He studies these matters very carefully. However, there were 8,000 who did the whole-time training, and only 77 did part-time training. This is a travesty. It is called sometimes universal National Service training. There is no universality in this at all, and there is no fairness in it at all, and I think that some explanation or apology is owed to the Committee about the position.

Mr. Ward: Let me deal very quickly with the question asked by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) about Civil Defence. The Royal Air Force share of the mobile defence columns which have been announced is 12 columns out of the 48. That means that we shall

give 2,500 men a year one month's training during their whole-time service. Then, when they pass into class H, they will be called up to do their Reserve service and, over the period of three years, the number will build up to 7,500, which will man our 12 mobile columns. Starting in October, we shall begin this training at Dumfries.
The other part of the Civil Defence training concerns the class H reservists. I described that last year. It was a scheme under which we were to take in 15,000 men a year and give them each two periods of training, so that in any one year we should have had 30,000 under training. Owing to the new home defence measures which have been announced by the Minister of Defence and by the Home Secretary, we have had to modify slightly our original scheme for class H training.
We shall now take in each year 10,000 men instead of 15,000 and give them each two periods of training in fire fighting, so that in any one year, when the scheme is operating fully, there should be about 20,000 men being trained. We expect that the first depot and the first instructors will be available in July, and that we shall be able to train about 7,000 of those men this year.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), we have debated that subject often before and I am prepared to debate it again, but there is not much time tonight. I have always been frank about the principles governing the call-up of the class H men, and we determine the number to be called up for their National Service by the need to keep the force fully manned to discharge this cold war task, to mount a deterrent force and to keep the air defences in readiness. We shall not call up men for Reserve training for the sake of calling them up and wasting their time. We shall only call up the class H men we need on the outbreak of war.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Gentleman give some indication of who were the unfortunate 77?

Mr. Ward: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused.
The nomenclature is important. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about part-time and full-time service, he means the difference between the two-year Regular service and the three and a half years on


Reserve. If he wants to talk about the evening training, he must talk about non-continuous training or, if he is talking about 21 days a year, he must talk about continuous training.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it like that. I am using the term which he used in answer to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It appears in HANSARD of 4th March, 1955, c. 311–12.

Mr. Ward: What the hon. Gentleman wants to know is how many Class H men we called up last year.

Mr. Beswick: I am asking about those who were called up for part-time training in 1954.

Mr. Ward: Part-time training is the liability of the National Service man for three and a half years. That is what the hon. Gentleman meant. About 8,000 were called up last year.

Mr. Beswick: Seventy-seven.

Mr. Ward: Eight thousand.

Mr. de Freitas: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this point again before Thursday?
It was part of a written answer given in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 4th March, the heading of which is "Numbers who did part-time training during 1954." The figure given under that heading is 77. As my hon. Friend asked, who are these 77? Was it just favouritism that they were called up, or what?

Mr. Ward: It means people who did voluntary training in the evenings.

Mr. Beswick: Voluntary training?

Mr. Ward: The number of people actually called up to do their part-time service under their liability was 8,000.

Mr. Beswick: This says part-time. Let us get the matter straight. As I understand it, 136,000 have an obligation to do part-time training but, according to the figures of the Under-Secretary, only 77 were called upon to perform that obligation.

Mr. Ward: That is not so. Perhaps we can return to this point on Thursday? If somebody is lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday, I shall be glad to deal with it.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope that that will be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,709,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 230,000,all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 11,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1956.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS OFFICE, LEEDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: In raising this matter I ought to point out, first, that the Royal Army Pay Corps in Leeds is not actually in my constituency, but I must also mention that some of its employees live in my constituency and that my attention has been drawn to the trouble which has been going on for twelve months inside the Pay Corps. When I found out the trouble I realised that this matter ought to be investigated; and when I get my teeth into a thing I do not like to let go so easily. It is true to say that I have been assisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and I understand some of the employees live in his constituency.
I must make one admission, that when the War Department decided it had to find fresh premises it did make a survey in the City of Leeds but found it impossible to find the right type of premises. Finally, it decided to go to Ovenden where, I believe, it found premises. After that my right hon. Friend and I went to see the Secretary of State for War, and we pointed out that a short time ago employees in the Pay Corps had been promised that the camp would be permanent in the city. So many of the young people purchased houses and moved into the city, and when there was talk about it going 18 miles out of the city there was consternation.
When we saw the right hon. Gentleman he quite nonchalantly said, "If you can find suitable premises in Leeds I am quite prepared to stop the job being done at Ovenden." Fortunately for us, wedid find a place, Greenbanks, situated in Horsforth just about equi-distant between Leeds and Bradford. It is an admirable place, with a sportsfield, theatre, baths, sleeping accommodation, and room for expansion. In August we received a communication from the Under-Secretary of State for War, promising that he would make some in-

vestigation and I believe that in September we received a report, if it could be called a report. He said that he found Greenbanks was not satisfactory, that it was not big enough to make it suitable, particularly because the cost of conversion would be four or five times that of Ovenden, and that, moreover, the Home Office had turned it down.
I say emphatically that only a cursory inspection of Greenbanks took place and the Home Office did not turn it down. It was the public outcry that turned it down. It is wrong for a Minister to fob off hon. Members of the House of Commons with such a report, which we knew was entirely wrong. We all felt very indignant about this matter, and 1 am in a better position to judge than the Minister is because I have been round and about Greenbanks and Ovenden, while the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for War are dependent upon Departmental reports. My experience in local government tells me never to depend too much on Departmental reports. I can imagine people in the Department saying, "These Members think that they have got something, but we are not going to be outbid."
We approached a chartered quantity surveyor for a report, and here I should like to draw attention to the public money which is expended quite unnecessarily on the camp at Ovenden. It had been derelict for seven years. No one would have it. It has been exposed to the elements on the Pennine Range, but the War Department said, "We must go there at all costs." Yet it is only a fortnight since the Minister was saying how interested he was in the well-being of the Department which he represents.
The report of the chartered quantity surveyor was overwhelmingly in favour of our opinion. We then thought that surely the Minister would have a little common sense and agree to the camp being removed from Bishop's Palace to Greenbanks instead of to Ovenden. I am quite prepared to give way on certain points, but I would say, as an impartial person in this case, that the report, all things being equal, was in favour of Greenbanks. The Minister should realise that as a result of this decision people are being forced to travel 18 to 20 miles. It means that they have to set out at 5.30 or 5.45 a.m. to get to Ovenden to start


work. That results in less efficiency and more sickness, especially in the bad weather which we have been experiencing during the past months. I would remind the Minister that we have had photographs taken of the camp during the last fortnight.
Before the removal took place, we tried our best to avoid its being carried out, but our efforts did not achieve any success. The result is that we are now receiving complaints from the people who are working at Ovenden. We were promised some time ago that if something could be made of Greenbanks, the Minister would do all he could to assist us. Why has the Minister not shown more recognition of the opinion which we have expressed than of the opinions put forward by his Department? During the Parliamentary Recess, I had to telephone to London at my own expense at a time when the removal was actually taking place. The Minister had promised my right hon. Friend and me that there would be no removal until he had received the joint report. That is the sort of thing which is taking place inside the Department, and it is something to which we ought to take strong objection.
During the past few days I have received a number of complaints about Ovenden. I am told that the morale throughout the camp is low. The huts are not weatherproof in spite of money having been spent. Thousands of pounds of what I call hidden money has been spent on repairs, and so on. The average travelling time taken by those at the camp is three hours per day. The incidence of sickness has increased considerably, and the cost per week to those who are not eligible for the usual grants is 17s. 6d. There are inadequate facilities for troops to wash up their plates, mugs and cutlery.
I have a photograph in my hand which I will pass to the Minister. In the barrack room there are only two wooden writing chairs and one writing table for 13 men. The young soldiers have to sit on their beds. It will readily be appreciated that the female personnel have no time whatever to do their shopping because of the distance which they have to travel.
I cannot understand why the removal took place. It has been argued that in

case of emergency no expansion would take place at Greenbanks, but, surely, after what we heard during the defence debate, would there not be need for expansion? After having heard speeches about what should be done to care for young troops and civilian personnel, I think it is a shocking shame that the removal took place from Leeds to Ovenden.
I want to be factual—I have tried to be honest over this matter. I should like to know why the Minister did not send the Under-Secretary with some other hon. Members to make an inspection instead of depending on some Departmental reports—what I call a "hole-in-corner" method. Naturally, one cannot stop feathers flying about. We know who has been to the camp. The caretaker at Greenbanks can tell us. We know what is taking place. We know what some of the colonels have said about it.
The War Office is at present paying out £100 per week in grants. The commanding officer and other officers are still living in Leeds. The £100 per week will amount to a large sum over a period. If the Ovenden scheme had not been carried out, although £10,000 had been spent, we should in the long run have saved money by staying at Greenbanks and carrying out the alterations there.
I want the Minister to realise that if he is going to be honest about this—1 take it he will be—and give me satisfaction he must agree to the inspection of Greenbanks and Ovenden by a joint committee of hon. Members in not only my interests but the interest of the public and those employed by the Royal Army Pay Corps.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I should like very briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) has said. It is one of the great features of our Parliamentary system that even a small body of Her Majesty's subjects can, when they have a grievance, have that grievance attended to in this House; and it is because of such a grievance that my hon. Friend has raised this matter tonight.
There is quite a number of civilian personnel employed in this pay office in Leeds. I think it is about 150. There


is no doubt at all that they have a very great grievance with the Secretary of State, because the pay office was moved to Ovenden Park. My hon. Friend has described the inconvenience and other disadvantageous features about this removal.
I think we would both agree that, if there really was no real alternative, the Secretary of State would have had to have done this. When we saw him the first time that, in fact, was what he said. He said, "I realise that it is unpleasant and awkward, but we have to clear out from our existing premises and this is the only place I can find." He said, "If you can find somewhere in or nearer Leeds that is better, I would be only too happy."
After that interview I was very disappointed with the failure on the part of the Department to take the action that was necessary. It was within a week or so of our seeing him that we sent him the proposal that the Department should take this hostel at Horsforth, Greenbanks, instead. I was amazed to receive a letter from the Secretary of State not referring to this, but turning down any idea of any alternative accommodation.
After some difficulty, I managed to see the then Parliamentary Secretary and impressed upon him that this hostel was available and that the local authority had refused to agree to its use for Civil Defence purposes and that I was given to believe that they would welcome the War Office going there. However, it was not until September, I think, that any proper inquiry was made and it was a very inadequate inquiry even then.
It was not until 1st November, when we saw the Secretary of State together, that it was then at last agreed that there should be this joint investigation. It was extremely unfortunate, to put it no higher, that four or five months were allowed to elapse before the possibility of using the Greenbanks hostel was properly considered.
I cannot help saying that I think that the War Office had really made up its mind at the start that it was going to Ovenden Park and had become committed to that project too early, had begun to spend money on it and was frightened to change in the middle and become exposed to being accused of having made a mistake. Taking that attitude was

wrong, because from the point of view of the convenience of the staff it would be much better, even though £10,000 had been spent, to go to Greenbanks hostel.
I want to ask the Secretary of State how much has been spent on the repairs and alterations which have been necessary at Ovenden Park. Was it as much as, or more than the £19,000 originally contemplated? I should like to ask him why it was that he turned down the Green Park hostel proposal. I know some of the difficulties of the time and of adapting it, but I cannot believe that it would have been impossible to have persuaded the bishop to have allowed the use of his palace a little longer while necessary alterations were taking place.
I very much hope that he will be able to give a far better explanation than we have yet had from his Department. I do not think that this affair reflects very much credit on the War Office. It has not handled its relations with its employees at all well and has paid no attention to their wishes or desires in this matter. It has neglected to make any serious search for alternative accommodation and has delayed investigating the possibility of using that accommodation when it was brought to its notice and, finally, made its decision without giving full or adequate explanation to my hon. Friend or to myself or to its own employees.

10.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) has asked me to give a full explanation of this matter, but he has not allowed me a great deal of time in which to do it. Ten minutes is not long for a subject as complicated as this, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known that. I wish to give a proper explanation, and I shall do my best in the time available.
I know how deeply the people concerned, the civilian staff, feel about this matter. I know that both the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) and the right hon. Gentleman have represented those feelings, as is their duty as Members of Parliament for that area, and I know how strongly and sincerely they feel about this. But, as so often happens when people have strong feelings, the whole story has not been told.


I do not wish to delve into past history, but the original proposal was that we should remain in the Bishop's Palace. For that we were to have a lease of 21 years. That was negotiated in 1951, but unfortunately—for no one would deny that it is preferable to have this office in Leeds—the Bishop died, and the new Bishop would not go on with the project for a 21-year lease. He said that he wanted the palace for a boys' school. He wished us to get out as early as possible, and the beginning of 1955 was the end of the period which he allowed us.
We therefore set out to find a pay office. At that time Greenbanks was not available, and a very extensive search was made throughout Leeds. I think that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member would agree that at that time there was nowhere available. Meanwhile the new Bishop was pressing us about what we proposed to do and how soon we would get out of the palace, and the time factor arose. The only place available was at Ovenden which, I admit, has the major defect of being a long way from where everyone lives. But there is there the asset of a capacity for expansion. One cannot organise the Army on the assumption that in the event of war everything else will go by the board.
There was no alternative, and the Ovenden site seemed the best that could be found. We started these negotiations, and at that time we heard nothing from any of the employees. I think I am right in saying that if Greenbanks had not turned up there would not be the present complaint.

Mr. Gaitskell: The matter was raised before that.

Mr. Head: All I am saying is that there was nothing else but Ovenden available at that time.
The next thing was that we were told, in 1954. when time was getting very short, that there was this possibility of obtaining Greenbanks. On two occasions I received delegations, arranged by the right hon. Gentleman and from the hon. Member for Normanton, of members of the Civil Service concerned who felt strongly about it. At their own cost they commissioned a chartered surveyor or architect to make a special reconnaissance of Greenbanks.
From the point of view of the War Office, Greenbanks has two major defects. The first is that this original survey was based on the requirements of the civilian staff, but not of the military staff. We made our own survey of Greenbanks and our estimate was £45,000, whereas the figure in the original survey was £7,000. There is a very great difference between those two figures, and the reason for the disparity is that the requirements of the military staff of the pay office were not originally included.
The second consideration was that at Greenbanks there is no opportunity for the expansion which would be necessary in time of war. It was also found, upon examination by the Ministry of Works, that there were no facilities nearby for the expansion of billeting, and so forth, which would be necessary in war for the personnel which would have to be accommodated there.
On account of cost and on account of size, we came to the conclusion that Greenbanks was not suitable. I know that the hon. Member thinks that we came to that conclusion because we were committed to Ovenden and would not change. When I saw that delegation, however, I went back to the War Office and said, "If Greenbanks is really suitable, and it will avoid the necessity for travelling, we will change. The only sensible thing to do is to change. If you find that it is suitable, do not bother about the fact that a change has to be made. We will change because it is the sensible course to take."
It is true that I did not go there myself, but there are an awful lot of places in respect of which changes are resented, and where buildings are unsuitable, and I cannot look at all of them. If there had been a doubt in the matter I should have gone there myself, or sent the Under-Secretary, but my Department were categorical about the matter. I said, "Are you sure that you are not saying this because we are committed?" and they said, "No: Greenbanks will not do, and it will be very expensive. Under the circumstances we had better stick to Ovenden."
I realise that the people in the pay office have lived in Leeds and are probably Leeds people, and I know full well the inconvenience that may have been caused to them, but there are many civil


servants who have to travel 15, 20 or 25 miles to work. We have laid on a bus service from Leeds to Ovenden, and anybody who takes three hours to travel there must either miss the bus or use an alternative form of transport. I also realise that the housing situation in Halifax is difficult but. as hon. Members know, special allowances and rates exist for those who live some way from their place of work.

Mr. A. Roberts: In the right hon. Gentleman's final letter he promised that something would be done about Green-banks. I hope that he will make some reference to its future development.

Mr. Head: When the hon. Member says that I promised that something would be done, he means not as a pay office but perhaps as an alternative place of employment for some other organisation. That is perfectly true, and we discussed that very project with the people concerned, and the matter is still under consideration.
I know that the roofs at Ovenden have leaked, but we have had rather bad weather conditions. I know that the canteen facilities are not all that might be desired, and that some of the furniture is not adequate, and we are trying to put these matters right. I also know that the large offices in the gymnasium are very good ones, and compare favourably with offices anywhere.
I would not pretend for a moment that this is an ideal place; in fact, I would say that it was extremely inconvenient—but we have to have a pay office somewhere in the Leeds area. Greenbanks was too small, and I think it would have been wrong to go to a place which we knew

to be too small, too expensive, and not really capable of doing the job. Although I appreciate that it is extremely inconvenient for the staff at the present time, it is my belief that, either through their finding alternative accommodation in a different place, or in some other way, the problem may sort itself out. Some will move, and others will find the conditions less wearisome and tiresome as time goes on.
I know that when an office is moved the daily life of civil servants is disturbed but these things happen in the Army, both for civil servants and military staff. There is a great deal of disturbance, difficulty, and separation, and problems arise which affect married life, domestic life and accommodation. I am extremely sorry that we could not have found a better solution, but I think that it would have been wrong to go to Greenbanks simply because of the admitted difficulty for the 150 people concerned. It would not have been right to go into a building which we knew to be too small, which we knew would have been expensive to adapt, and which we knew we could not possibly have got into in the time available.
If there had been a sensible solution we should have taken it. I was not pigheaded about Greenbanks, and I should have been quite prepared to put up a case to the Treasury and write off the loss, but having been into the matter carefully, I am sure that no other decision was open to us in the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'Clock